Hey there forum,
I was very excited to get my c320 earlier this week and did some test driving on that very same night. I live in a wooded area in San Francisco so I had to drive around a bit to get satelite reception. It did fairly well on the first evening, not exactly the routes that I would normally take, but for night driving (no traffic) it got the job done fine.
We drove out to a concert in Oakland yesterday. We'd been to this venue before, so we wanted to see how similar the route would be. It missed the freeway on-ramp that we usually take (highways are not avoided in preferences)and would have had us drive through the city for another couple of miles until the next entrance. It didn't know that we were on the highway (showed us on the street below the highway) which is understandable given the close proximity. When approaching the venue, it indicated off of an earlier exit than the usual/faster way. On the way back it would keep losing signals unless it was in the middle of the dash blocking some of the view of the road (I would prefer it off the dash if possible, near the stereo).
I think I was perhaps too excited and hyped up the product beyond appropriate expectation. Don't get me wrong, I'll definitely continue to use it, especially when going to areas that I'm unfamiliar with. This was a bit of disapointment though.
Do you have your c320 set for fastest route or shortest route. This will make a difference in the route choices. Also, if you find the route is not to your liking, you can choose to reroute or just start going the way you prefer and the unit will "recalcuate" a new route based on your new position.
I have a c320 and do not have any probs. The only thing I do not like about it is the 2 second delay in the postioning...
You have to keep the unit on the dash to get the most signals, if you keep it down off the dash then you will have the problem of losing the satelite signals as you did.
Next time try shortest route as another member mention.
This was a very interesting entry as I just reported this error to Garmin support. They informed me that there is a mapping error. For all, try this; map your trip from Oakland airport to San Ramon, CA. Do a simulated drive and you will encounter a "Recal" along the interstate, about a third into the trip. It is very inportant to do this drive simulation before using the GPS for a critical and long drive. If the simulation goes fine, you may not have any problems with this route. If you encounter a "Recal" during the simulation, you need to take note where it is encountered. Refer to several of the on-line maps for this same route to see where the GPS did not indicate a proper turn. You need to take note of this turn and just do it. While on the actual drive, the GPS will not indicate this move, and you just have to do it. The GPS will then "Recal" and hopefully keep you on track. Now, this trick may have problems if another error is encounted downline. Always good to print several other on-line maps "just in case"...
Even with these problems, it is rather few. The errors seem to be on the mapping end and not the function of the GPS. It is either that the road is incorrectly indicated in the graphics, or that it is incorrectly tagged where the mapping engine may get off track. I don't know if many of these mapping errors will ever get fully resolved, as they are man created. The only thing constant is the logic of the GPS...
I have my doubts that the nuvi 350 can determine paved routes or vehicle size. You may be interested in where we ended up after inputting 'Avoid Unpaved Roads' while driving with a 'Bus'.
Thank you for your suggestions and encouragement. I've always thought that the shortest distance between two points would be a straight line, and thus, the fastest route. This is not always the case with street mapping as geographical landmarks force you to other directions. This being said, I can understand how on a long road trip, say a hundred miles+, this setting would make a difference in travel time given the larger variation of possible routes. However, for in-city use, I see shorter/faster as being synonymous (my model does not receive traffic updates, I don't think it knows the posted speed limits or which streets have less stop signs/lights). Are you able to see a difference between shorter/faster settings in your community?
I have a good chance to test this here in Hawaii. We have just too many roads and they are just too close. Therefore, it is a chance to map many paths. I like the Faster than the Shorter. The Faster has less turns and it keeps to main roads, where large signs are a help. Shorter routes goes through a few back roads, where they are sometimes clogged with local traffic and residential activities (rubbish trucks, school buses, school crossings). When using the GPS on a trip where you really don't know the route, I would only bet on the Faster setting. I don't think the traffic updates are a big deal. If you run into detours, the GPS will Recal to get you back on track. Many areas do not really have a live update to this data.
However, for in-city use, I see shorter/faster as being synonymous (my model does not receive traffic updates, I don't think it knows the posted speed limits or which streets have less stop signs/lights). Are you able to see a difference between shorter/faster settings in your community?
Yes, I see a difference.
1. The GPS does know speed limits of different types of roads.
2. The GPS will calculate a different route based on the setting (shorter or faster) even though the total time might only be 1 minute different.
So, from a practical point of view, both methods will get you there in approximately the same time (barring stop signs and traffic lights which it doesn't seem to know), however the route may be different.
Here in Orlando, I keep my c530 on "Faster", but I will ignore it's suggestion if I know it's heading me into an area with slow traffic (we have a lot of those ).
On a recent occasion, though, it suggested a more roundabout route, which was indeed 5-10 minutes faster than the direct route I would have chosen on my own. It involved taking the Turnpike past my destination and backtracking on the Interstate, whereas I usually take the surface roads part of the way -- shorter, but, in this case, not faster.
for in-city use, I see shorter/faster as being synonymous (my model does not receive traffic updates, I don't think it knows the posted speed limits or which streets have less stop signs/lights). Are you able to see a difference between shorter/faster settings in your community?
I notice a difference.
Using the Shorter route often takes me through neighborhood streets, while the Faster route, is more in line with what I'd normally take and going around the neighborhood streets.
The shortest route is not always the fastest route.
I set mine to Shorter over Faster on my way home from work today.
I drive from Detroit to Lansing, Mi. I know the route in my sleep of course but wanted to see what the Nuvi 350 "knew". Well it kept trying to tell me to get off in Howell, Mi. then the next exit...then the next...and so on. I am thinking..huh? What? No way...then I pulled over and changed it to the Fastest routes and bingo it got me to Lansing via the Freeway...
My experience in the Bay Area is that faster will definitely put you on highways and major boulevards - shortest will put you on the streets. Shortest distance is definitely not always the fastest but the ride can be a lot prettier. For example, if you come from the Walnut Creek area and want to go to Berkeley - the fastest route will take you through the tunnel and up interstate 80 which can be terribly slow - shortest distance will bypass the tunnel and the interstate. It will take you over the Berkeley Hills which is not only a prettier drive but many times faster.
No problem with my C320.
Are we supposed to do a test run to see if a recal occurs?
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2018