Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-01 23:53 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-11-04 19:35 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-01 23:53 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-02 19:42 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-02 14:24 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-02 21:49 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-02 20:26 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Tim <onelydad58@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 04:46 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 12:48 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-03 16:42 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-03 13:41 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-03 21:09 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-03 18:00 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Bill <Billaboard@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 00:22 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-03 21:01 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-03 23:11 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-04 14:45 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 12:27 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 11:59 -0800
stored maps (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-04 20:32 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:18 -0800
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 02:04 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:18 -0800
Re: stored maps "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 11:26 +0100
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 16:42 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:08 +0100
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 18:22 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:52 +0100
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:15 +0000
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 19:34 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:55 -0400
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 20:13 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:44 -0400
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 21:58 +0100
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 21:39 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-06 01:18 +0100
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 20:39 -0800
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-06 14:28 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 09:58 -0800
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 14:23 -0400
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-06 10:57 -0400
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-06 14:23 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-07 23:11 +0100
Re: stored maps Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-05 21:42 +0100
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 22:05 +0100
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 21:41 +0000
Re: stored maps Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-06 22:36 +0100
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-07 01:20 +0000
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-07 16:23 +0000
Re: stored maps Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-07 16:53 +0000
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-07 18:47 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 13:49 -0800
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-07 19:10 -0400
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-08 00:21 +0000
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 20:53 -0800
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 00:01 -0400
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-08 13:26 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 10:09 -0400
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-08 16:11 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-08 11:57 -0400
Re: stored maps 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-07 18:41 -0700
Re: stored maps The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 21:04 -0800
Re: stored maps Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-08 05:55 +0100
Re: stored maps Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-08 06:55 +0000
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-08 13:38 +0000
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 19:31 +0000
Re: stored maps "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 22:08 +0100
Re: stored maps Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-06 11:25 +0000
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 19:18 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:55 -0400
Re: stored maps "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 20:16 +0000
Re: stored maps nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:44 -0400
Re: stored maps Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-06 08:11 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 14:31 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 14:23 -0800
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 02:08 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 20:10 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 22:24 -0800
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 10:13 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 10:25 -0800
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:15 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:16 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:56 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 11:23 +0100
navigation (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 10:29 +0000
Re: navigation (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:40 +0100
Re: navigation "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 14:47 +0000
Re: navigation "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:04 +0100
Re: navigation 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-05 09:34 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-11-05 13:08 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 11:20 +0100
navigation (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 10:34 +0000
Re: navigation (was: Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead?) "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:51 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-05 09:34 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 19:21 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-05 12:11 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 20:19 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:16 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 20:28 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 14:55 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-05 20:21 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-05 15:44 -0400
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-05 22:11 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-03 20:25 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Tim <onelydad58@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 04:40 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-03 00:22 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 12:43 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-03 13:41 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-03 22:40 +0100
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 13:12 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-02 14:24 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Steve Oates <steveoates@tiscali.co.uk> - 2018-11-04 17:53 +0000
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-04 12:27 -0700
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2018-11-06 23:37 +0200
Re: Are Android Tablets Really Dead? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-11-04 19:35 +0000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-04 22:18 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <proncj$cvb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57144 |
On 11/04/2018 06:04 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <prnr7d$p0u$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 11/04/2018 12:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> It'd be interesting to have a comparison of these (Google Maps,
>>> Co-Pilot, Osmand, Ski Tracks, others ...) - how wide is the track they
>>> save (i. e. how far off it can you go, where there's no coverage, before
>>> they fail)? Or do they store an area rather than a track (if so how big
>>> an area)? Or what other system?
>>
>>They store it by lat/lon|date/time as seen by your GPS chip. Plus
> []
> If they only store the points along the actual route, then presumably
> once you deviate by more than a few tens of yards, it just tells you
> you're on your own? I thought they (apart from the ones that store a
> whole area) stored a strip _around_ the route.
I don't know what you mean here. Do you mean the 'Recalculating...'
thing? I miss the Garmin lady not saying that since the last update.
She frequently wants me to make u-turns for at least a mile before she
gives up, but she never admits it :-)
Look at the .gpx files -- they're just text files. One of the apps
(maybe more) can snap to roads. The accuracy depends on the phone/gps
chip as well as the accuracy of the satellite signal. The BLU I had
would occasionally place points miles away from my actual location,
which was kind of funny when I waned to look at where I'd skied.
--
Cheers, Bev
If he had any brains, he'd take them out and play with them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 11:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <cfi5bf-n7t.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #57144 |
On 05/11/2018 03.04, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <prnr7d$p0u$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev > <bashley101@gmail.com> writes: >> On 11/04/2018 12:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > [] >>> It'd be interesting to have a comparison of these (Google Maps, >>> Co-Pilot, Osmand, Ski Tracks, others ...) - how wide is the track they >>> save (i. e. how far off it can you go, where there's no coverage, before >>> they fail)? Or do they store an area rather than a track (if so how big >>> an area)? Or what other system? >> >> They store it by lat/lon|date/time as seen by your GPS chip. Plus > [] > If they only store the points along the actual route, then presumably > once you deviate by more than a few tens of yards, it just tells you > you're on your own? I thought they (apart from the ones that store a > whole area) stored a strip _around_ the route. You are confusing storing a track with storing a map region around a track. Different feature. The track is just a list of positions. Possibly on some devices could include information as to "take this road from here to here", but that's another format. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 16:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <prpve9.7qs.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57134 |
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > In message <prnj2s$46d$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev > <bashley101@gmail.com> writes: > [] > >No data plan, so google maps are useless for things like this. My > >Garmin tells me about traffic ahead when I'm maybe 10 seconds away from > >the traffic jam -- sometimes not until I'm actually stopped in it. I > >wonder if they all use the same traffic assessment service... > > > >I like Co-Pilot because it's easy to enter addresses. I like Osmand > >because it saves a track. Ski Tracks saves a track using less battery > >-- even if you're nowhere near a ski area. > > > (Google can, I understand, store a track too - not sure how far in > advance you have to tell it though.) As others mentioned, it's not the 'track' which matters, but how big a map is/can_be stored. Google Maps can only store a 50x50 km/miles map areas - if that -, i.e. useless for any real travels. > It'd be interesting to have a comparison of these (Google Maps, > Co-Pilot, Osmand, Ski Tracks, others ...) - how wide is the track they > save (i. e. how far off it can you go, where there's no coverage, before > they fail)? Or do they store an area rather than a track (if so how big > an area)? Or what other system? You can find these kind of comparisons on the web, i.e. in Google :-) search for stuff like "Best GPS navigation apps for Android" or similar. Apps which can work offline, like OsmAnd, Sygic, Co-Pilot etc. can store anywhere from provinces/states to countries to continents. Especially for high-population countries, the storage/downloads required can run in the multi-GB. For example 4 German states (Laender) in OsmAnd are 3.3GB but the whole of Australia is 'only' 650MB. Note that OsmAnd's OSM maps, carry much, much more information than just roads, for example the locations, sizes and shapes of individual buildings. Some apps have roads-only downloads, which are much smaller than the full maps. For example the OsmAnd roads-only map of Australia is 'only' 245MB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 19:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <g4bf9rFtu4tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57178 |
On 05/11/2018 17.42, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <prnj2s$46d$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
>> <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
>> []
>>> No data plan, so google maps are useless for things like this. My
>>> Garmin tells me about traffic ahead when I'm maybe 10 seconds away from
>>> the traffic jam -- sometimes not until I'm actually stopped in it. I
>>> wonder if they all use the same traffic assessment service...
>>>
>>> I like Co-Pilot because it's easy to enter addresses. I like Osmand
>>> because it saves a track. Ski Tracks saves a track using less battery
>>> -- even if you're nowhere near a ski area.
>>>
>> (Google can, I understand, store a track too - not sure how far in
>> advance you have to tell it though.)
>
> As others mentioned, it's not the 'track' which matters, but how big a
> map is/can_be stored.
>
> Google Maps can only store a 50x50 km/miles map areas - if that -,
> i.e. useless for any real travels.
Friends told me that you can plan an itinerary and then download the map
for the itinerary.
>
>> It'd be interesting to have a comparison of these (Google Maps,
>> Co-Pilot, Osmand, Ski Tracks, others ...) - how wide is the track they
>> save (i. e. how far off it can you go, where there's no coverage, before
>> they fail)? Or do they store an area rather than a track (if so how big
>> an area)? Or what other system?
>
> You can find these kind of comparisons on the web, i.e. in Google :-)
> search for stuff like "Best GPS navigation apps for Android" or similar.
>
> Apps which can work offline, like OsmAnd, Sygic, Co-Pilot etc. can
> store anywhere from provinces/states to countries to continents.
>
> Especially for high-population countries, the storage/downloads
> required can run in the multi-GB. For example 4 German states (Laender)
> in OsmAnd are 3.3GB but the whole of Australia is 'only' 650MB.
>
> Note that OsmAnd's OSM maps, carry much, much more information than
> just roads, for example the locations, sizes and shapes of individual
> buildings.
The free version is limited to ten downloads. The pay version is not
expensive and has unlimited downloads.
> Some apps have roads-only downloads, which are much smaller than the
> full maps. For example the OsmAnd roads-only map of Australia is 'only'
> 245MB.
>
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 18:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <prq59m.484.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57182 |
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 05/11/2018 17.42, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> In message <prnj2s$46d$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev > >> <bashley101@gmail.com> writes: > >> [] > >>> No data plan, so google maps are useless for things like this. My > >>> Garmin tells me about traffic ahead when I'm maybe 10 seconds away from > >>> the traffic jam -- sometimes not until I'm actually stopped in it. I > >>> wonder if they all use the same traffic assessment service... > >>> > >>> I like Co-Pilot because it's easy to enter addresses. I like Osmand > >>> because it saves a track. Ski Tracks saves a track using less battery > >>> -- even if you're nowhere near a ski area. > >>> > >> (Google can, I understand, store a track too - not sure how far in > >> advance you have to tell it though.) > > > > As others mentioned, it's not the 'track' which matters, but how big a > > map is/can_be stored. > > > > Google Maps can only store a 50x50 km/miles map areas - if that -, > > i.e. useless for any real travels. > > Friends told me that you can plan an itinerary and then download the map > for the itinerary. I used to have friends like that, but no more! :-) But seriously, I don't know and am not interested to find out. For me, Google Maps is only useful in online mode, because of traffic information. For offline use, I use A Real App (TM)! :-) > >> It'd be interesting to have a comparison of these (Google Maps, > >> Co-Pilot, Osmand, Ski Tracks, others ...) - how wide is the track they > >> save (i. e. how far off it can you go, where there's no coverage, before > >> they fail)? Or do they store an area rather than a track (if so how big > >> an area)? Or what other system? > > > > You can find these kind of comparisons on the web, i.e. in Google :-) > > search for stuff like "Best GPS navigation apps for Android" or similar. > > > > Apps which can work offline, like OsmAnd, Sygic, Co-Pilot etc. can > > store anywhere from provinces/states to countries to continents. > > > > Especially for high-population countries, the storage/downloads > > required can run in the multi-GB. For example 4 German states (Laender) > > in OsmAnd are 3.3GB but the whole of Australia is 'only' 650MB. > > > > Note that OsmAnd's OSM maps, carry much, much more information than > > just roads, for example the locations, sizes and shapes of individual > > buildings. > > The free version is limited to ten downloads. The pay version is not > expensive and has unlimited downloads. Yes, I have the pay version (OsmAnd+). Have been using it for years. Backup/alternative app is Sygic (Premium + Traffic World, Lifetime license, a steal at only EUR 34.99). > > Some apps have roads-only downloads, which are much smaller than the > > full maps. For example the OsmAnd roads-only map of Australia is 'only' > > 245MB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 19:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <g4bhqoFufviU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57186 |
On 05/11/2018 19.22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/11/2018 17.42, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <prnj2s$46d$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
>>>> <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> []
>>>>> No data plan, so google maps are useless for things like this. My
>>>>> Garmin tells me about traffic ahead when I'm maybe 10 seconds away from
>>>>> the traffic jam -- sometimes not until I'm actually stopped in it. I
>>>>> wonder if they all use the same traffic assessment service...
>>>>>
>>>>> I like Co-Pilot because it's easy to enter addresses. I like Osmand
>>>>> because it saves a track. Ski Tracks saves a track using less battery
>>>>> -- even if you're nowhere near a ski area.
>>>>>
>>>> (Google can, I understand, store a track too - not sure how far in
>>>> advance you have to tell it though.)
>>>
>>> As others mentioned, it's not the 'track' which matters, but how big a
>>> map is/can_be stored.
>>>
>>> Google Maps can only store a 50x50 km/miles map areas - if that -,
>>> i.e. useless for any real travels.
>>
>> Friends told me that you can plan an itinerary and then download the map
>> for the itinerary.
>
> I used to have friends like that, but no more! :-)
>
> But seriously, I don't know and am not interested to find out.
>
> For me, Google Maps is only useful in online mode, because of traffic
> information. For offline use, I use A Real App (TM)! :-)
Downloading the map in advance doesn't block online use; it simply
reduces the amount of data to download while on the road.
>
>>>> It'd be interesting to have a comparison of these (Google Maps,
>>>> Co-Pilot, Osmand, Ski Tracks, others ...) - how wide is the track they
>>>> save (i. e. how far off it can you go, where there's no coverage, before
>>>> they fail)? Or do they store an area rather than a track (if so how big
>>>> an area)? Or what other system?
>>>
>>> You can find these kind of comparisons on the web, i.e. in Google :-)
>>> search for stuff like "Best GPS navigation apps for Android" or similar.
>>>
>>> Apps which can work offline, like OsmAnd, Sygic, Co-Pilot etc. can
>>> store anywhere from provinces/states to countries to continents.
>>>
>>> Especially for high-population countries, the storage/downloads
>>> required can run in the multi-GB. For example 4 German states (Laender)
>>> in OsmAnd are 3.3GB but the whole of Australia is 'only' 650MB.
>>>
>>> Note that OsmAnd's OSM maps, carry much, much more information than
>>> just roads, for example the locations, sizes and shapes of individual
>>> buildings.
>>
>> The free version is limited to ten downloads. The pay version is not
>> expensive and has unlimited downloads.
>
> Yes, I have the pay version (OsmAnd+). Have been using it for years.
> Backup/alternative app is Sygic (Premium + Traffic World, Lifetime
> license, a steal at only EUR 34.99).
I tried Sygic some years ago and did not like it.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 19:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <prq8c0.7pk.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57189 |
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, I have the pay version (OsmAnd+). Have been using it for years.
> > Backup/alternative app is Sygic (Premium + Traffic World, Lifetime
> > license, a steal at only EUR 34.99).
>
> I tried Sygic some years ago and did not like it.
I don't like the app/UI either, I mainly/only have it for the
different source of maps ("TomTom and other providers" maps versus OSM
for OsmAnd+).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 19:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <ERqxDhf+sJ4bFwGe@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57189 |
In message <g4bhqoFufviU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >On 05/11/2018 19.22, Frank Slootweg wrote: [] >> For me, Google Maps is only useful in online mode, because of traffic >> information. For offline use, I use A Real App (TM)! :-) > >Downloading the map in advance doesn't block online use; it simply >reduces the amount of data to download while on the road. [] Do you have to actively do something to do the in-advance download, or does it just do it whenever there _is_ a connection (thus getting traffic reports etc.)? If it just does it whenever, then presumably you don't necessarily know you've driven outside the coverage area. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stoopid gesture be done on somebody's part." "We're just the guys to do it." Eric "Otter" Stratton (Tim Matheson) and John "Bluto" Blutarsky (John Belushi) - N. L's Animal House (1978)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 14:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <051120181455335460%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57207 |
In article <ERqxDhf+sJ4bFwGe@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >Downloading the map in advance doesn't block online use; it simply > >reduces the amount of data to download while on the road. > [] > Do you have to actively do something to do the in-advance download, or > does it just do it whenever there _is_ a connection (thus getting > traffic reports etc.)? If it just does it whenever, then presumably you > don't necessarily know you've driven outside the coverage area. depends on the app, but generally, preloaded maps will not auto-update if you drive elsewhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 20:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <6dA+gvjWRK4bFwQA@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57210 |
In message <051120181455335460%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes: >In article <ERqxDhf+sJ4bFwGe@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) ><G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >Downloading the map in advance doesn't block online use; it simply >> >reduces the amount of data to download while on the road. >> [] >> Do you have to actively do something to do the in-advance download, or >> does it just do it whenever there _is_ a connection (thus getting >> traffic reports etc.)? If it just does it whenever, then presumably you >> don't necessarily know you've driven outside the coverage area. > >depends on the app, but generally, preloaded maps will not auto-update >if you drive elsewhere. We were I think specifically discussing Google Maps in this twig (small branch!) of the thread: so, if using Google Maps and you've entered your destination while within the reach of a tower (or your home wifi), do you have to do something specific to download the map, or does it happen anyway? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf You know what the big secret about posh people is? Most of them are lovely. - Richard Osman, RT 2016/7/9-15
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 15:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <051120181544372149%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57213 |
In article <6dA+gvjWRK4bFwQA@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> >Downloading the map in advance doesn't block online use; it simply > >> >reduces the amount of data to download while on the road. > >> [] > >> Do you have to actively do something to do the in-advance download, or > >> does it just do it whenever there _is_ a connection (thus getting > >> traffic reports etc.)? If it just does it whenever, then presumably you > >> don't necessarily know you've driven outside the coverage area. > > > >depends on the app, but generally, preloaded maps will not auto-update > >if you drive elsewhere. > > We were I think specifically discussing Google Maps in this twig (small > branch!) of the thread: so, if using Google Maps and you've entered your > destination while within the reach of a tower (or your home wifi), do > you have to do something specific to download the map, or does it happen > anyway? launch google maps and view the area of interest and that area will be cached, but how much of it can vary and you don't have control over it either (although scrolling/zooming might help). if your destination is close enough, it may not need to download additional map data while en route, but there are no guarantees. as i said, google maps was designed for an always-on connection. if you don't have that, then google maps is not a good choice. other products would be more suitable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 21:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <g4bp7uF1jg2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57207 |
On 05/11/2018 20.34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <g4bhqoFufviU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 05/11/2018 19.22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> []
>>> For me, Google Maps is only useful in online mode, because of traffic
>>> information. For offline use, I use A Real App (TM)! :-)
>>
>> Downloading the map in advance doesn't block online use; it simply
>> reduces the amount of data to download while on the road.
> []
> Do you have to actively do something to do the in-advance download, or
> does it just do it whenever there _is_ a connection (thus getting
> traffic reports etc.)? If it just does it whenever, then presumably you
> don't necessarily know you've driven outside the coverage area.
It asks. I get a notification saying that the stored map is old, update
it or it will be deleted on such date.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 21:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <pe8KgspmiL4bFwjx@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57222 |
In message <g4bp7uF1jg2U2@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >On 05/11/2018 20.34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> In message <g4bhqoFufviU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. >> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >>> On 05/11/2018 19.22, Frank Slootweg wrote: >> [] >>>> For me, Google Maps is only useful in online mode, because of traffic >>>> information. For offline use, I use A Real App (TM)! :-) >>> >>> Downloading the map in advance doesn't block online use; it simply >>> reduces the amount of data to download while on the road. >> [] >> Do you have to actively do something to do the in-advance download, or >> does it just do it whenever there _is_ a connection (thus getting >> traffic reports etc.)? If it just does it whenever, then presumably you >> don't necessarily know you've driven outside the coverage area. > >It asks. I get a notification saying that the stored map is old, update >it or it will be deleted on such date. > What does it ask, and when? If I sit at home, within range of my wifi, and tell it I'm going to XXX, does it download the map to XXX automatically, and then ask me something when I actually drive to XXX and get out of coverage? Or does it ask before downloading the map, before I leave home? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf live your dash. ... On your tombstone, there's the date you're born and the date you die - and in between there's a dash. - a friend quoted by Dustin Hoffman in Radio Times, 5-11 January 2013
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 01:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <g4c4vbF44imU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #57226 |
On 05/11/2018 22.39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <g4bp7uF1jg2U2@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>> On 05/11/2018 20.34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <g4bhqoFufviU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>>> On 05/11/2018 19.22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> []
>>>>> For me, Google Maps is only useful in online mode, because of
>>>>> traffic
>>>>> information. For offline use, I use A Real App (TM)! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Downloading the map in advance doesn't block online use; it simply
>>>> reduces the amount of data to download while on the road.
>>> []
>>> Do you have to actively do something to do the in-advance download, or
>>> does it just do it whenever there _is_ a connection (thus getting
>>> traffic reports etc.)? If it just does it whenever, then presumably you
>>> don't necessarily know you've driven outside the coverage area.
>>
>> It asks. I get a notification saying that the stored map is old, update
>> it or it will be deleted on such date.
>>
> What does it ask, and when? If I sit at home, within range of my wifi,
> and tell it I'm going to XXX, does it download the map to XXX
> automatically, and then ask me something when I actually drive to XXX
> and get out of coverage? Or does it ask before downloading the map,
> before I leave home?
Open maps. Open the three bar menu. Down there there is an entry "maps
without connection" (I'm translating from Spanish). It will lists which
maps are already downloaded, when they time out, and offer you to select
your own zone to download.
There is a cog wheel for further configuration: update automatically,
download automatically, preferences (like only with wifi) and about.
I don't know how to download the map of a route.
When I said "It asks" I was referring to the map of an area already
downloaded, maybe a month ago. Not to the map of a route. The
notification is a system notification.
I tried now to plan a route, and I did not see how to download the map
of the route. If I google on "how to download route on google maps" what
I get is how to download a rectangular area, which you can resize as
needed. I also see instructions on how to plan a route using the web,
not the app.
--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-05 20:39 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <prr5ut$4uh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57229 |
On 11/05/2018 04:18 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 05/11/2018 22.39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <g4bp7uF1jg2U2@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>> On 05/11/2018 20.34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>> In message <g4bhqoFufviU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R.
>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On 05/11/2018 19.22, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> []
>>>>>> For me, Google Maps is only useful in online mode, because of
>>>>>> traffic
>>>>>> information. For offline use, I use A Real App (TM)! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Downloading the map in advance doesn't block online use; it simply
>>>>> reduces the amount of data to download while on the road.
>>>> []
>>>> Do you have to actively do something to do the in-advance download, or
>>>> does it just do it whenever there _is_ a connection (thus getting
>>>> traffic reports etc.)? If it just does it whenever, then presumably you
>>>> don't necessarily know you've driven outside the coverage area.
>>>
>>> It asks. I get a notification saying that the stored map is old, update
>>> it or it will be deleted on such date.
>>>
>> What does it ask, and when? If I sit at home, within range of my wifi,
>> and tell it I'm going to XXX, does it download the map to XXX
>> automatically, and then ask me something when I actually drive to XXX
>> and get out of coverage? Or does it ask before downloading the map,
>> before I leave home?
>
> Open maps. Open the three bar menu. Down there there is an entry "maps
> without connection" (I'm translating from Spanish). It will lists which
> maps are already downloaded, when they time out, and offer you to select
> your own zone to download.
>
> There is a cog wheel for further configuration: update automatically,
> download automatically, preferences (like only with wifi) and about.
>
> I don't know how to download the map of a route.
>
> When I said "It asks" I was referring to the map of an area already
> downloaded, maybe a month ago. Not to the map of a route. The
> notification is a system notification.
>
> I tried now to plan a route, and I did not see how to download the map
> of the route. If I google on "how to download route on google maps" what
> I get is how to download a rectangular area, which you can resize as
> needed. I also see instructions on how to plan a route using the web,
> not the app.
I planned a route using google maps on my computer. The problem is that
it will only accept a certain number of points, requiring the use of
separate routes for each part of the trip. It also doesn't optimize, so
you have to be careful about entering points. I can't imagine doing the
same thing on a phone or tablet, doing it on the computer was
sufficiently stressful. The results were OK, though.
No matter what you choose, you have to make efforts to force the route
that YOU want to use rather than whatever it regards as proper by adding
waypoints .
I also tried Roadtrippers and AAA, but I can't remember how happy I was.
ONE of them optimized the route.
--
Cheers, Bev
"The last thing you want is for somebody to commit suicide
before executing them."
-Gary Deland, former Utah director for corrections
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 14:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <eKCHFr9eUa4bFw1a@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57238 |
In message <prr5ut$4uh$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> writes: [] >I planned a route using google maps on my computer. The problem is >that it will only accept a certain number of points, requiring the use >of separate routes for each part of the trip. It also doesn't >optimize, so you have to be careful about entering points. I can't >imagine doing the same thing on a phone or tablet, doing it on the >computer was sufficiently stressful. The results were OK, though. > >No matter what you choose, you have to make efforts to force the route >that YOU want to use rather than whatever it regards as proper by >adding waypoints . > >I also tried Roadtrippers and AAA, but I can't remember how happy I >was. ONE of them optimized the route. > > By "optimise(d)", do you mean pick the route using good roads or something like that, or do you mean rearrange the order of "waypoints" to minimise the total distance (as a delivery driver might want)? When I've done it on a (Windows) computer, I haven't seen the latter form of optimisation either: the best you can do is delete waypoints (and add them back, but only at the end), or - I think only when you have a start and end only - reverse the direction. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 09:58 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <prskp3$oaa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57252 |
On 11/06/2018 06:28 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <prr5ut$4uh$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> writes:
> []
>>I planned a route using google maps on my computer. The problem is
>>that it will only accept a certain number of points, requiring the use
>>of separate routes for each part of the trip. It also doesn't
>>optimize, so you have to be careful about entering points. I can't
>>imagine doing the same thing on a phone or tablet, doing it on the
>>computer was sufficiently stressful. The results were OK, though.
>>
>>No matter what you choose, you have to make efforts to force the route
>>that YOU want to use rather than whatever it regards as proper by
>>adding waypoints .
>>
>>I also tried Roadtrippers and AAA, but I can't remember how happy I
>>was. ONE of them optimized the route.
>>
>>
> By "optimise(d)", do you mean pick the route using good roads or
> something like that, or do you mean rearrange the order of "waypoints"
> to minimise the total distance (as a delivery driver might want)?
Yes. The ability to say "Oh crap I left out Arches" and have it entered
between Moab and Capitol Reef automatically.
Trying to change a google maps route is sometimes agonizing. Useless
loops get created and can't be eliminated except by starting over.
It would be nice to be able to include dirt roads too.
> When I've done it on a (Windows) computer, I haven't seen the latter
> form of optimisation either: the best you can do is delete waypoints
> (and add them back, but only at the end), or - I think only when you
> have a start and end only - reverse the direction.
--
Cheers, Bev
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 14:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <061120181423019259%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57262 |
In article <prskp3$oaa$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: > >>I planned a route using google maps on my computer. The problem is > >>that it will only accept a certain number of points, requiring the use > >>of separate routes for each part of the trip. It also doesn't > >>optimize, so you have to be careful about entering points. I can't > >>imagine doing the same thing on a phone or tablet, doing it on the > >>computer was sufficiently stressful. The results were OK, though. > >> > >>No matter what you choose, you have to make efforts to force the route > >>that YOU want to use rather than whatever it regards as proper by > >>adding waypoints . > >> > >>I also tried Roadtrippers and AAA, but I can't remember how happy I > >>was. ONE of them optimized the route. > >> > > By "optimise(d)", do you mean pick the route using good roads or > > something like that, or do you mean rearrange the order of "waypoints" > > to minimise the total distance (as a delivery driver might want)? > > Yes. The ability to say "Oh crap I left out Arches" and have it entered > between Moab and Capitol Reef automatically. that's very easy, although it can't read minds and know in what part of the trip you want to visit. you will need to put it between, not after. > Trying to change a google maps route is sometimes agonizing. where 'agonizing' is little more than adding or dragging a waypoint. > Useless > loops get created and can't be eliminated except by starting over. yes they can. > It would be nice to be able to include dirt roads too. they're included. it's actually difficult to avoid them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 10:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <061120181057279110%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #57238 |
In article <prr5ut$4uh$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: > I planned a route using google maps on my computer. The problem is that > it will only accept a certain number of points, requiring the use of > separate routes for each part of the trip. false. you can add as many interim stops as you want. if there's a limit, i haven't hit it, with something like 15 stops on a single trip. > It also doesn't optimize, so > you have to be careful about entering points. it definitely optimizes the route, including using current traffic conditions, which can be tweaked if needed. you can also tell it how to optimize, for driving, walking or public transportation, or to avoid toll roads. in many cases, it offers a choice of routes and approximate travel time. > I can't imagine doing the > same thing on a phone or tablet, doing it on the computer was > sufficiently stressful. The results were OK, though. it's actually easier. just speak the destination, which can be a street address or a landmark. > No matter what you choose, you have to make efforts to force the route > that YOU want to use rather than whatever it regards as proper by adding > waypoints . if you're going to force the route, why are you using a navigation device? > I also tried Roadtrippers and AAA, but I can't remember how happy I was. > ONE of them optimized the route. but you just got done saying you don't want that...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-06 14:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: stored maps |
| Message-ID | <SKCEF38ePa4bFwUV@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #57229 |
In message <g4c4vbF44imU1@mid.individual.net>, Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> writes: >On 05/11/2018 22.39, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] (Google maps) >> What does it ask, and when? If I sit at home, within range of my wifi, >> and tell it I'm going to XXX, does it download the map to XXX >> automatically, and then ask me something when I actually drive to XXX >> and get out of coverage? Or does it ask before downloading the map, >> before I leave home? > >Open maps. Open the three bar menu. Down there there is an entry "maps >without connection" (I'm translating from Spanish). It will lists which >maps are already downloaded, when they time out, and offer you to select >your own zone to download. That tells me which maps are downloaded. If - while still connected - I enter a route (or just a destination, assuming I start from where I am), does it automatically download the necessary map (I'm only going to be within England so most of the time one should suffice, if as someone suggested England is 275 × 275 km maps) while I'm connected, or do I have to specifically tell it to do so? > >There is a cog wheel for further configuration: update automatically, >download automatically, preferences (like only with wifi) and about. Thanks for all the information. > >I don't know how to download the map of a route. Maybe someone else can answer my question above? > >When I said "It asks" I was referring to the map of an area already >downloaded, maybe a month ago. Not to the map of a route. The >notification is a system notification. > >I tried now to plan a route, and I did not see how to download the map >of the route. If I google on "how to download route on google maps" what >I get is how to download a rectangular area, which you can resize as >needed. I also see instructions on how to plan a route using the web, >not the app. > > -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web