[pacoman03]

Now who's talking out their arse. You acknowledge that newer and older GPS receivers are not the same, but seem to be claiming that ALL newer GPS receivers have the same sensitivity. Prove it.

[mikeo007]

Now who's talking out their arse. You acknowledge that newer and older GPS receivers are not the same, but seem to be claiming that ALL newer GPS receivers have the same sensitivity. Prove it.

You seem VERY confused...where did I say that all newer GPS receivers are the same? You really need to quit before your hole is too deep.

[pacoman03]

You seem VERY confused...where did I say that all newer GPS receivers are the same? You really need to quit before your hole is too deep.

Huh. Marty_LK stated in a previous post that "Not all GPS chips are equal. Manufacturers may tend to install cheaper and weaker chips to cut pennies from costs when aGPS is used.". You accused him of talking out of his "behind". And earlier you said. "There's no difference in the GPS chip." So what exactly are you saying.

[mikeo007]

Huh. Marty_LK stated in a previous post that "Not all GPS chips are equal. Manufacturers may tend to install cheaper and weaker chips to cut pennies from costs when aGPS is used.". You accused him of talking out of his "behind". And earlier you said. "There's no difference in the GPS chip." So what exactly are you saying.

Again, you really should read what I was responding to. He stated that the GPS chip in an aGPS was weaker than one in a plain GPS. There was no grounds for this claim, which is why I was asking for some sort of proof of this. You provided proof that some GPS are better than others, but that was never the issue.

[pacoman03]

No, he stated that some manufacturers MAY use a cheaper chip in their aGPS devices than some other manufacturers MAY use in their GPS only devices. He didn't say that they did, only that they might. If this were the case, it might explain why some GPS only devices could perform better than some aGPS devices. Exactly what is wrong with that logic..

[mikeo007]

No, he stated that some manufacturers MAY use a cheaper chip in their aGPS devices than some other manufacturers MAY use in their GPS only devices. He didn't say that they did, only that they might. If this were the case, it might explain why some GPS only devices could perform better than some aGPS devices. Exactly what is wrong with that logic..

The fact that's it's an assumption with no facts of any sort to back it up.

[Marty_LK]

The fact that's it's an assumption with no facts of any sort to back it up.

A member of my church, who is in the GPS industry and programs software for GPS companies, explained to me at a morning bible study at a local Dennys about this. If you require I produce this beloved Christian brother, that will never happen. If you wish to continue to argue about this, do so without any further input from me.

[mikeo007]

A member of my church, who is in the GPS industry and programs software for GPS companies, explained to me at a morning bible study at a local Dennys about this. If you require I produce this beloved Christian brother, that will never happen. If you wish to continue to argue about this, do so without any further input from me.

Lol awesome. That's proof enough for me.

[jpash549]

When does a supposition become an assumption?

[TheScionicMan]

My PlayBook's GPS works great. I'm on the 15th floor of a 20+ story building and all apps get a lock within moments. I've got Gmaps sideloaded, a link to m.maps.nokia.com, the Bing Maps app, What's Up.

[312Lorden]

Also, sometimes a reboot helps, especially if you're using Google Maps. The other day, my normally reliable PB would not pick up signal, no matter how long I waited. So, I rebooted, restarted Google Maps and it picked up the GPS signal immediately.

I had pre cached the entire region, creating the rough equivalent of a stand alone, offline GPS device. Worked like a charm. :-)
______

Can you explain step-by-step how this is done. I might consider this. Also how much file size will this take for, say, British Columbia, Alberta, Wyoming and Montana?



Sent from my A200 using Tapatalk 2

[pacoman03]

Can you explain step-by-step how this is done. I might consider this. Also how much file size will this take for, say, British Columbia, Alberta, Wyoming and Montana?

To reboot, simply turn your PB off, then turn it back on. Simple. If you want to cache British Columbia, Alberta, Wyoming and Montana in Google Maps, forget it. You can only cache 8 or 10 10x10 miles squares on the map, which won't allow you to cache the whole British Columbia alone. If you want an app that stores maps of those places for offline use, has turn by turn voice assisted navigation, that doesn't have the tendency to lose its GPS signal (as Google Maps does), and allows for offline route calculation (Gooble Maps doesn't), then try Osmand or Nogago (they're basically the same apps), which are both free in app world., .

[Cracklen]

A"the playbook has GPS, doesnt it?"


Going bk to the Ops original,

I would like a Link to a playbook related pages describing gps setup starting with app selection ?!
Or is it as simple as select a app. (free would be preferable). And step outside in a open space for half an hour....

Ooops maybe I should chkout the gps + mapping forum.....

[pacoman03]

A"the playbook has GPS, doesnt it?"


Going bk to the Ops original,

I would like a Link to a playbook related pages describing gps setup starting with app selection ?!
Or is it as simple as select a app. (free would be preferable). And step outside in a open space for half an hour....
.

There is no setup for the GPS. If you have Bing Maps on your PB, you already have a GPS app. If you have it, open Bing, and from the home screen there is a blue circle in the top right corner. Tap it, and it will try to find your location using GPS. How long it takes or how well it works depends a lot on where you're located. Being outside with a clear view of the sky is probably helpful, but I can get a GPS lock within a few seconds inside my house on the first floor. As others have noted in this thread, not everyone has the same experience.

[shadow10z]

to use the gps as an effective non wifi device you will need to get a app that has offline caching or use downloaded maps.

[Marty_LK]

What would be great is for there to be an official Google Maps for the PB. The ones in the Appworld just aren't giving me much luck. A number of them say they are based on Google Maps, but the ones I've tried are horrendous compared to what I'm used to on Android. I hope RIM will be able to get an official Google Maps system or one that works as well for BB10.

[FF22]

A"the playbook has GPS, doesnt it?"


Going bk to the Ops original,

I would like a Link to a playbook related pages describing gps setup starting with app selection ?!
Or is it as simple as select a app. (free would be preferable). And step outside in a open space for half an hour....

Ooops maybe I should chkout the gps + mapping forum.....

Someone posted a program that is free (although, I suspect that the programmer might be heading toward a paying model eventually) - GPS Data Master. It will show your current coordinates, show you on a map and provide some other info and possibly tracking.

The thing is that many/most users did not separate the various aspects of what is a gps or now commonly known as gps. Originally gps provided lat/long - PERIOD. With that, you could find your position on a paper topo map. That is basically what the satellites allow a gps to do - triangulate from 3 or more satellites. Then a manufacturers added tracking and then added putting in coordinates to create a route you could follow from a to b to c to .....z

Then someone added mapping and then searching and ...... Then cellphones added agps (assisted) so that when you are indoors and the gps can't see (hear, get weak radio waves from way up there), they could use the cell towers nearby to capture your position and help speed things up.

As we see from Apple's latest example, mapping is still a developing art and their new phone had a gps but very inaccurate/poor mapping software.

So, in appworld, there are a variety of apps - some only show your position (lat/long) and some show a map of where you are. And some can allow you to point to Kansas City and drive there with cell reception so that they can grab maps as needed and some allow you to grab maps in advance so when in Glacier National Park (areas in Colorado or Nevada or ....) you have the maps when there is no internet.

My standalone tomtom gps has all of North America and much of Western Europe in its little brain and does not need the internet but its maps get out of date.

My fingers are tired.

[mikeo007]

I haven't found any incredible offline maps for PB, but I remember using an app called Osmond before. Is that still available? It let you download maps and use them without a data connection.

[312Lorden]

Thanks pacoman03. Now that you mention it, I had Osmand maps on my list of wanted free apps, not knowing anything about its capabilities.

[TheScionicMan]

What would be great is for there to be an official Google Maps for the PB. The ones in the Appworld just aren't giving me much luck. A number of them say they are based on Google Maps, but the ones I've tried are horrendous compared to what I'm used to on Android. I hope RIM will be able to get an official Google Maps system or one that works as well for BB10.

If you sideload this one, it works pretty well.

Blackberry Playbook Android Apps | Good e-Reader Android APP Store - Playbook App Market

[rkennedy01]

To reboot, simply turn your PB off, then turn it back on. Simple. If you want to cache British Columbia, Alberta, Wyoming and Montana in Google Maps, forget it. You can only cache 8 or 10 10x10 miles squares on the map, which won't allow you to cache the whole British Columbia alone. If you want an app that stores maps of those places for offline use, has turn by turn voice assisted navigation, that doesn't have the tendency to lose its GPS signal (as Google Maps does), and allows for offline route calculation (Gooble Maps doesn't), then try Osmand or Nogago (they're basically the same apps), which are both free in app world., .

Actually, I've cached much larger regions than what you're describing. The island of Mauritius measures 30x35 miles, and yet I've cached the entire thing in a single offline map. I've also cached much of South and Central Florida, from my home in Palm Beach all the way up to the entire Orlando metro area, in just three distinct, overlapping regions. Worked great when all I wanted to do was find my way around town after visiting Universal Studios, etc., and also track my progress returning home down I95.

Bottom Line: Unless you're planning a cross-country trip that spans multiple provinces/states, you can do pretty well with 10 slots available in Google Maps. Certainly enough to cover the general region along a planned travel route for a day or two - and, assuming you have wifi access at your destination or stopover location, you just download more regions for the next stage, etc. I could leapfrog all over the U.S. doing this without issue, using nothing but my PB and Google Maps.

RCK

[pacoman03]

Ok, I checked, and I was off by a bit. The blocks that Google caches are not 10 x 10 miles each, but are actually about 18 x 18 miles. That said, 10 cached maps of 18 x 18 miles covers about 3,250 miles, which may sound like a lot but not when you consider that my home state of Pennsylvania covers about 40,000 square miles (and PA is not a particularly big state). Thus I can cache less than 10% of my home state. In comparison, Osmand lets you cache (in the free version) 16 full state maps. Further, as I stated, I and others have found that Google for some reason tends to lose its GPS signal- Osmand seems much less prone to this. Also, Osmand does not need wifi or data to calculate a route, as Google does, and if, while navigating a route, you happen to stray off course, Osmand will automatically recalculate your route- again offline and again something that Google can't do.. Finally, Osmand tends to run more stable on the PB than Google, even though Google is not as prone to crashing as it was under OS 2.0

The downside, as I see it, is that Osmand may not be ideal for all areas. Our friend Pedro from Portugal reported that Osmand's maps were far from complete for his area- though my experience in my area is that its maps are pretty complete and accurate.

[Boight]

Yup, same as in Portugal, you'd end up swimming in the river here if you used Magellan or Osmand (open street maps - direct) or any other of the many navigation apps using these flawed "free" maps.

GPS also calculates height above sea level, and then distance traveled, time, avg speed. Viewranger graphs all these for you but it's not a "navigation app".

[rkennedy01]

Ok, I checked, and I was off by a bit. The blocks that Google caches are not 10 x 10 miles each, but are actually about 18 x 18 miles. That said, 10 cached maps of 18 x 18 miles covers about 3,250 miles, which may sound like a lot but not when you consider that my home state of Pennsylvania covers about 40,000 square miles (and PA is not a particularly big state). Thus I ca.n cache less than 10% of my home state.

Dude, what version of Google Maps are you using? Because with 6.11.1, I can cache HUGE regions for offline access - example, most of central Florida (nearly 20K square km) in a SINGLE cache entry. See for yourself in the screenshots below:



Note: The above map took a little over 82MB of space, which seems quite efficient. And with 10 such slots availale, I can easily cover the entire state and have room left over. Or just save adjacent regions along an extended route right up the East Coast. Once the area is cached, I can turn my wifi off and zoom in/out at will. And the Playbook's GPS will faithfully display my location as I move around, etc.

Frankly, that's all I'm looking for in a mapping/navigation solution - something that will show me where I am in relation to my surroundings and also which direction I'm headed relative to a desired destination. The rest I can figure out on my own...

RCK

[Marty_LK]

Ok, I checked, and I was off by a bit. The blocks that Google caches are not 10 x 10 miles each, but are actually about 18 x 18 miles. That said, 10 cached maps of 18 x 18 miles covers about 3,250 miles, which may sound like a lot but not when you consider that my home state of Pennsylvania covers about 40,000 square miles (and PA is not a particularly big state). Thus I can cache less than 10% of my home state. In comparison, Osmand lets you cache (in the free version) 16 full state maps. Further, as I stated, I and others have found that Google for some reason tends to lose its GPS signal- Osmand seems much less prone to this. Also, Osmand does not need wifi or data to calculate a route, as Google does, and if, while navigating a route, you happen to stray off course, Osmand will automatically recalculate your route- again offline and again something that Google can't do.. Finally, Osmand tends to run more stable on the PB than Google, even though Google is not as prone to crashing as it was under OS 2.0

The downside, as I see it, is that Osmand may not be ideal for all areas. Our friend Pedro from Portugal reported that Osmand's maps were far from complete for his area- though my experience in my area is that its maps are pretty complete and accurate.

Yeah, I tried Osmand and couldn't get it to work efficiently. It was incredibly laggy and terribly slow. I downloaded about 15 adjoining states in my region of the US and tried to set a destination in another state and it wouldn't do it. It kept saying the offline data needed to be downloaded, even though I did have it downloaded and selected.

Until RIM provides a really good and efficient maps & nav app, I'm sticking with my Galaxy S3. There just isn't anything that can match its convenience, simplicity and quality - not even dedicated GPS units.

By the way, thanks for the info on GPS apps. Much appreciated.