Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:52 pm Post subject:
It's good to see Pepsifreak's communication, but alarming that he (or maybe she?) has to report that ALK appear to have rolled out the Ausie version with the same faults.
No doubt the prospect of tweaking to eliminate the routing problems was just as attractive on the other side of the globe as it was here, and its damp squib status just as disappointing. For us over here, it is embarrassing to find that our overseas cousins should look to a forum such as this, only to find such a confusing squabble.
Now, Dave, here is another chance to clear this up. You seem to think that tweaking will solve any problems with this application. Just how is that to be achieved?
Joined: Aug 16, 2004 Posts: 589 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:19 pm Post subject:
I don't think tasking Dave eith that is the right approach Ponderous, although I sympathise with your frustration of course. There is only one answer, ALK have to get their act together and just SORT IT.
The fact that I am no where as seriously affected as the majority on this thread does not stop me from being angry and frustrated by the silence from ALK. The other point is that having spent £135 on CP5 why should anyone have to throw it away and buy something else that patently does a better job of the seemingly straight forward task of trustworthy routing.
I think a more pragmatic question to ask the moderators especially given their contacts is to please ask ALK for a response. _________________ TomTom 720
Nokia Lumia 800 with Nokia Maps, iPhone 4S with Apple Maps (sigh)
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:08 am Post subject:
Thanks, Topgazza for those thoughts. I for one do no relish having to keep on about this, but I think someone must as the forum team have a duty of care to product users.
I support your request that the team ask ALK to get this sorted out. However, this is not the first such request. The problem is that the forum have responded by effectively saying that there is nothing really wrong with this product, compounded it by suggesting that tweaking road speeds will eliminate any hiccups that CP 5 actually does have and failing to clarify matters when their assertions prove inaccurate.
There can be no doubt that the forum team need to do set matters straight without further delay. In view of what they have said in the past, they surely also have an automatic duty to help ALK come to the right decision.
May I remind the forum team of the routes posted on this thread. When they have tried them, perhaps they will withdraw their claim that they have not seen any problems themselves.
In an attempt to get this thread (more or less) back on the topic of tweaking road speeds and to help those loking for a quick solution I can offer the following. By changing the line
RoadWeightAdjust=646464646464646464
to
RoadWeightAdjust=646E64646464646464
in usertrip.dat and deftrip.dat, and replacing as previously described, largely eliminates the inbuilt bias towards motorways to a more neutral position (this is equivalent to adding 10% avoid weighting to motorways).
Note that the weightings affect both "Shortest" and "Quickest" options (which is as I would expect).
A quick analysis suggests to me that the routing algorithm, in order to take into account the weighting factors and produce a result in a reasonable time, ignores any Time/Distance improvements (depending on the option selected) less than around 5%.
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:48 pm Post subject:
KenS wrote:
largely eliminates the inbuilt bias towards motorways to a more neutral position (this is equivalent to adding 10% avoid weighting to motorways).
I tried that on my CoPilot Smartphone v1.0.1.69 but it doesn't fix the problem. It is possible that the maps I have loaded or some other factor is causing a problem with my setup, but I have tried lots of things and nothing fixes it.
Can you please do a quick test see what it calculates for the Quickest route between the following locations:
London to Dublin (I get routed via Scotland/Belfast when the quickest is via Holyhead)
Southampton to Hastings (I get routed via the M25 when the quickest is via the south coast)
M40 Junction 9 to M3 Junction 9 (I get routed via the M25 when the quickest is via the A34)
Gee, Topgazza, thank heavens I'm Latvian and just happen to be living in Germany, is that OK in your book?
Having already shared my 2 cents that, looking back, sounded like in defence of ALK (which I'm not) and Pocketgps team (which I am), I just wanted to add that in continental western Europe in general, and in Germany specifically, not unlinke the states, if you want to make the best time from a to b, you take the freeway/motorway/autobahn/A-road/whatever you guys call it. And it works every time (except when there's a 50 mile backwash and you're sitting there dreaming of a loo ) So maybe there is something about that british road network that just blows CoPilot's fuse... I dunno, I have my own set of problems with it, but quickest/shortest is definitely not at the top of my list. The silence from ALk is depressing but not really surprising, come one let's face it, how many of you actually expected ALK to confess everything here, raise your hands
Ponderous, keep up the good work Maybe they will fix it just so you stop
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 9:42 am Post subject:
On shortest routing at least, Ken S's adjustments to the road type biases do produce the routes that Skippy hoped for (see his three test routes posted above).
That is fine for that particular type of route. Unfortunately, it does not meet the need for one combination of settings that will produce the shortest route whatever the start point and destination. Avoiding motorways will not solve the problem where motorways would provide the shortest (or quickest) route. Similarly, although a there is a combination of settings that will find the shortest route in the middle of a rural area having only "secondary roads", it is of no use where other types of road are involved in the shortest route.
I agree with Rattle that although no doubt Topgazza meant his recent remarks in jest, they were tasteless.
As to Rattle's defence of the forum team, I do suggest that he or she reads all of what they have written. Forum managers are responsible for what they do and say, as are we all, and the inference that they should somehow be regarded as immune is unhelpful - if the objective is to get these problems solved rather than clouded over with red herrings and inaccurate statements from those who apparently hold themselves out as experts.
I have been following this discussion (and everything else on CP) and have read what everyone (including myself ) has written. And in all I have read so far regarding the Pocketgps team I see just a lot of beating around the bush by one individual. At least I haven't quite understood your problem with them. Why don't you come right out and state clearly and specifically what your objections against the team are (as opposed to not being responsible for what they do or say) and, more importantly, what do you expect them to do about it, and how. Maybe it will help put things more into perspective for everyone, including yourself.
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:20 pm Post subject:
PONDEROUS wrote:
On shortest routing at least, Ken S's adjustments to the road type biases do produce the routes that Skippy hoped for (see his three test routes posted above).
It is true that selecting "Shortest" does produce the route that I consider to be fairly close to the "Quickest", but this is true for the standard routing settings anyway - no tweaking is required!
My problem is that the "Quickest" routing is severely broken and I don't think that any amount of tweaking will fix it.
"Shortest" routing is also broken in that it will ignore many minor roads, but this is a seperate issue. I don't consider that it is quite as serious a problem as, for example, a quickest London to Dublin route via Belfast. _________________ Gone fishing!
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:40 pm Post subject:
Sorry, Rattle, if disagreeing with the forum team (or perhaps anyone who appears to you to have some kind of status or authority??) makes you nervous. However, I have already said, , through this and associated threads, what the problem is, and in in some detail.
Perhaps it might be of benefit if you were to read through the posts on this subject. At the moment, you are simply delaying the process of bringing about improvements to the way this forum team does business.
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:42 pm Post subject:
Rattle wrote:
Why don't you come right out and state clearly and specifically what your objections against the team are (as opposed to not being responsible for what they do or say) and, more importantly, what do you expect them to do about it, and how.
Rattle, I have already done this in my post in this thread on Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:32 am
The relevant part of the posting reads, and the points still stand:
Skippy wrote:
I brought CoPilot based on the review on this website. It wasn't until I had used it for 5 or 10 hours that the bugs became fully apparent. I honestly thought that the problems would be addressed fairly quickly but NOTHING has been done to fix the bugs. The retailer won't help (no refunds on software) and ALK won't help. This is the only place to vent my frustration. It's not a personal attack on anyone, I just want to see pressure put on ALK to fix the software that I paid good money for.
I think the PocketGPSWorld team should amend this review to note that after using the software long term, a number of problems have arisen and that these haven't been addressed by ALK. They should also note that 6 months on, there is still no traffic report integration either.
To leave the review as it stands seriously erodes the credibilty and impartiality of an otherwise excellent website.
So far, there has been no response from the PocketGPSWorld team to the suggestion that the review is ammended. I presume that Dave is very busy at the present time and he did mention that he is recovering from a fairly serious injury so it may be a little while before he gets a chance to respond. I little patience on our part is required, but at the same time, people aren't going to stop discussing the problems until they are fixed. _________________ Gone fishing!
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:04 pm Post subject:
PONDEROUS wrote:
Thanks, Topgazza for those thoughts. I for one do no relish having to keep on about this, but I think someone must as the forum team have a duty of care to product users.
WHAT!! Why do we have a duty of care? This is a web forum not the manufacturers support desk. If you buy a car on the basis of a review in What Car do you expect them to resolve your issues if it breaks down?
We don't sell the products nor are we paid to support them, Yes we'll try to help where we can but you don't encourage assistance with your stance and I for one think you should take this matter up with ALK.
I don't use CoPilot and so can't offer advice but I would like to remind you that we run this website as a hobby and all have day jobs. Your continual baiting does not encourage anyone to go the extra mile to assist you. _________________ Darren Griffin
Last edited by Darren on Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:20 pm; edited 3 times in total
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:11 pm Post subject:
Apologies, Skippy. I should of course have tried running Ken S's adjustments on Quickest, with and without the adjustments, and also on Shortest without any adjustments. I have now done that and, as you suspected, it makes no difference to your routes.
By the way, I am sure that the Shortest routing errors are not serious for you, just as none the routing errors, or whatever kind, are for Topgazza who, it appears, is able to enter all of his routes in his room the night before he sets off. It goes to show how different two users' needs can be.
For me, Shortest routes are all-important. Most days, I have to make 20 or 30 short hops of, say, 2-20 miles. This means that, if I am not to accept 20-30 journeys that may be 60% or double the proper distance, then I have to check and adjust 20 or 30 journeys each day. As you know, each route can require a long, frustrating session fiddling with waypoints and scrolling around until there are enough waypoints for CP 5 to "get the message".
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 634 Location: Lincolnshire, England
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:23 pm Post subject:
Darren
As I have said, you have no duty to answer any query. However, you most certainly do have a duty of care not to mislead when you do commit yourselves to provide an answer. Similar applies when you write reviews then leave them unchanged in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary of what you say.
If you do not know this, then you are doing yourself and your colleagues, not to mention your forum users, a disservice.
Your time and efforts are certainly appreciated, but that does not make a scrap of difference to the position.
Incidentally, none of what has been said would have been necessary had team members stuck to the facts, and taken the care to issue corrections when appropriate. All you have to do is begin following these simple principles and this will all soon be forgotten.
So Skippy, this is then really a question of principle, isn't it? Because anyone who has interest in buying CoPilot now and uses this website as a guide to determine the product of his or her choice will not read just the review, but also the forums, as the forums are an integral part of this site and provide angles other than just the reviewer's. And they should, because isn't that what forums are for? That's what sets reviewing websites apart from paper magazines (would you be writing letters to the magazine demanding a public letter of apology for the published review???). So if somebody wants to make an informed (informed being the key word here) choice, this someone will read the forums and this someone will learn about all deficiencies of CoPilot that have been reported up until now and will have enough information to make an informed decision. So if someone goes and buys a program based on a favourable review found on a website, and doesn't bother reading the forum on that very same website disclosing problems, should then the author of the review be liable if the expectations are not met? Please. When me, you, ponderous and others bought their copies, these problems weren't discussed here yet, so we couldn't have had the benefit of this information. It is there now for all to have, just like the review. Copying the list of known problems from the forums into the review (by the way, while we're at it, who is going to determine which problems get copied? me, you, ponderous? ) is going to serve no purpose other than bring some personal satisfaction. So this one about amending the review is not a case in point, and hence my suggestion still stands.
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!