Garmin does not show all available traffic info

Your traffic receiver is dependent on FM radio stations to transmit that info! Garmin and Navteq have nothing to do with it.

Melaqueman is correct.

The state and local governments gather the info, such as traffic speed and density.

They then pass the info on to their own traffic systems and to others such as Google, Navteq and FM Traffic (or whatever they are called now). How fast and how much of the info the different informatation suppliers provides depends on the software, digital maps and the distribution method.

In my area "Traffic" is always a little slow in reporting. But, it has saved me a lot of time by NOT sitting in stopped traffic on I-64.

Sometimes, while traveling north on I-95 from Richmond, I get alerts about traffic jams in DC which is almost 100 miles away. Hitting "Avoid" at that point will likely cause an immediate re-route off of I-95 and actually take longer than the lost time sitting in a log jam. Usually the traffic jam is long gone by the time you get to the incident, at that distance.

I have to admit that Google has set the bar rather high, when it comes to maps and traffic. My wife's new Galaxy III can display traffic conditions from Google maps that are fantastic. Garmin needs the same kind of display. The problem is that I don't think the current method (sub-carrier on an FM radio station) is fast enough to supply all the different conditions on EVERY monitored road in the vicinity of the radio station. Some other way is needed to disperse the traffic info.

Garmin needs to play "catch-up". Lets hope they don't drop the ball.

Maybe I'm confused, but my understanding is that if the device has subscription on Navteq traffic data, which is has, then the realtime information from Navteq should be the same regardless of the medium, be it Navteq website, FM, or anything else. What you say means that Navteq delivers to FM channels incomplete information, compared to Navteq's own website.

The data is sold to media outlets as a subscription, just like satellite radio is a subscription. Interstates and major highways are in the lowest tier, just like cable. You get what you pay for, but then transmitting all the possible data over a low speed link takes time and there may not be enough time to update all the roads for which there is data.

EDIT:
You also have to remember that your receiver is on a subscription as well. If you pay for a subscription, it's still the lowest tier of service which is no different than the "free" except for the ads.

Garmin no doubt needs to improve its traffic response time. Many areas don't even have coverage

I live near that area, with a Garmin 660 with lifetime traffic... for ~3 years...

I have NEVER seen traffic reports off Major expressways.

I've seen it on I94, I90, I294, but Never US41, or any smaller road..

Jan

> Interstates and major highways are in the lowest tier, just like cable. You get what you pay for

I did not see any options regarding the tiers of information from Navteq. What Navteq is showing on their own website is basically a promotion for businesses like Garmin to subscribe. If you are right and what Garmin users get through FM is the cheapest lowest tier subscription, then I wonder, who gets higher ones?

> transmitting all the possible data over a low speed link takes time and there may not be enough time to update all the roads for which there is data.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I guess, the information about all incidents and congestions in metro area does not have size more than 20-30K at most, so it shouldn't take more than 2-3 sec. to transmit. It's not like they are sending 3D high-res image of each accident.

Sadly but truly, even with LMT, I find it advisable to check traffic on the iPhone Maps app. It's a heck of a lot more accurate, and covers many, many more roads.

When I worked on the Pathfinder and Travtek projects in the late '80s (I sold the projects the radio hardware, designed the communication protocols they used and consulted on the system implementation) the amount of data required to cover the entire of the metropolitan areas in question was HUGE. And we had a lot fewer data sources than they do today.

But we had the advantage of having a limited population of users and because the network was bidirectional we knew where they were, where they were going and what the local traffic conditions were like, so we could provide detailed data tailored to the needs of the individual user.

Unless you have an HD receiver and live in an area with HD coverage (and few of us do) it would take about 8 minutes to transmit a cycle that comprises 30K of data (if you had an old MSN direct subscription you know that it took about 10 minutes for each of the low resolution weather map overlays to come through and they weren't exactly high resolution data blocks) - the raw modem rate is 1200 bps and there is FEC and other overhead that likely doubles the actual amount of data that needs to be sent.

No one wants to wait 8 minutes before they see traffic, so RDS based traffic service is a compromise that reduces start-up time and saves them money.

Then again I just had a look at the coverage maps on Navteq's site - I admittedly only checked a couple of cities. The ones I checked only seem to support major highways - it matches what I'm seeing locally.

No, it does not have to do anything with the delay. I actually have contacted Garmin support, and after several days of their "troubleshooting", finally received competent answer:

"Garmin provides traffic service for major highways and interstate highways only. Even though the traffic is provided by Navteq and they provide additional information on their website we do not provide this information in our service."

So it's exactly what I suggested - "Even though the traffic is provided by Navteq, we do not provide this information in our service". Even though we are subscribed on Navteq traffic data, it's not all the data that Navteq has, but only a subset. How small a subset - go to www.navteq.com and enter my zipcode 60714; you will see quite a number of colored streets, besides 2-3 highways. That's all we don't have. Looks like about 80% or so.

It looks to me like Garmin should be more forthcoming in their marketing literature and product descriptions about this. Wondering what others think.

Garmin definitely needs to improve in this area. I find the traffic reporting so unreliable that I usually ignore them. It is not helpful at all.

In my area, MSN traffic was better... Wish I could still use it, beat Navtech by a lot.

Larry

Same here, but in fact not only Garmin... see my earlier post about this, at http://www.poi-factory.com/node/36255 - quite a number of users have reported their experiences, and it appears that quality of the traffic coverage mostly depends on the area.

My experience is that Garmin's support staff like to write stuff that sounds nice but has no basis in fact - I have been through significant issues with them on several occasions that ultimately have been driven to the executive level and resulted in profuse apologies.

However the statement that they only provide coverage for highways appears to be accurate. The question to ask is WHY they limit coverage.

The key driver may well be that there is too much data (which results in a longer startup delay and cycle time) to keep the service 'timely' - but the support person would not be told the underlying reason for the decision. Note that he didn't say WHY they only do major highways or why they DON'T do surface roads in his reply.

Going to Navteq's web site to see what coverage Garmin provides is misguided. You need to go to GARMIN's web site to see what coverage Garmin provides.

Just click the 'view coverage' for the service you are interested in at the following page:

http://www8.garmin.com/traffic/

It seems to me that Garmin is EXTREMELY forthcoming with their traffic coverage. You simply have to go to Garmin's site, rather than Navteq's and look up the coverage for the cities you are interested in.

Just because someone offers a feature doesn't mean that another has to relay that feature in a resale environment - Garmin doesn't say that they provide all of Navteq's traffic, just that Navteq provides the data. They provide a comprehensive set of maps which clearly identify what roads they cover on their web site.

If they don't provide coverage of every major highway, perhaps there are simply too many in those cities to reasonably provide 100% coverage using the RDS data system. I suppose they could expand it with the HD system, because it operates at a much higher data rate, but at least for now I gather that they simply send the same data, just more often.

I personally have no issues with the coverage provided where I live (Montreal, Canada) when I compare it with what Navteq shows - they deliver everything in the metropolitan area that they show on their web site.

Now this is confusing

I have all but given up on relying on the Garmin Traffic service.

I have not had any experience wiht the newest "3D" traffic.

The reports seem mixed on the reliability and accuracy of that service too.

I keep hoping that Garmin will be able to offer up some sort of reliable traffic service sooner or later.

So far... it seems that it will be "later".

I see what you mean; looking at the map at http://www.navteq.com/rdstraffic/index_217.htm , it looks like indeed the only red lines are the highways ("flow and incident-enabled roads") - assuming that "flow" is the congestion. However, the level of details at that map is not what I would call "EXTREMELY forthcoming". The map is mostly about the level of the signal rather than level of details.

Coverage maps for higher levels of service, such as http://www.navteq.com/hdtraffic/index_555.htm , are even less detailed. Are you able to figure out what roads are covered at that page? I'm not. And what does it mean "controlled access coverage" and "arterial coverage"?

The same Garmin page however does show very nice animated picture of the GPS showing traffic on the screen, and obviously it's not highways that it shows.

And, extensive list under "Where does the traffic data come from?" also implies much, much more than what we actually have.

No, all of this does not look to me forthcoming at all; much more like so familiar practice of disclaiming big print with small one.

Not true. Each message is only a few bits long, followed by checksums. Then the next message (including headers) follows. RDS is an extremely low bandwidth medium, but it has the advantage of using existing powerful transmitters.

Follow-up with Garmin:

me:
"Thanks for the clarification. Could you tell, is this limitation unique to my model? Does Garmin have other models where traffic coverage extends to local streets, and shows all the data from traffic provider, rather tnan just a subset?

I know you have what's called "HD Traffic", but the description only mentions frequency of updates, and says nothing about the level of detail."

Garmin:
"I am sorry but this is the only traffic coverage we have."

So I wonder, who but Navteq's own website shows Navteq traffic on local streets?

I have noticed to that my 2595lmt will show an accident 1 mile from me and when I get there , nothing is there. Slow traffic has been showing up good and road work has been ok also.

I live in MA and I find that the coverage and currency is pretty good. BUT: I have two subscriptions running: The free Navteq that came with the unit and the optional Clear Channel/Total Traffic subscription. Between the two of them they are usually up to date and current.

One thing I found to pass along that is interesting: When I set up my unit (2595) I selected Germany as my host country. One of the reasons I did this was so I could change the traffic setting from "auto" to "manual" if I wanted. It also lets you quickly check which one is being used when it's set to "auto". I have found the split is almost 50-50 between them as to which subscription is being used. Different areas favor one service over the other. Last weekend we got stuck in a massive traffic jam on the way back from NH. The unit was running the Navteq susbscription and did warn us MILES ahead of time. When I switched it manually over to Total Traffic we got the green "car" icon at first, (traffic up to date indicated) but eventually it caught up. Last time I checked the "secret menu" listing the stored traffic channels, I found Total Traffic had the advantage: 8 TT channels and 6 Navteq. This stays pretty static over time.

So there are three levels of Garmin traffic:
1. NAVTEQ RDS Traffic (http://www8.garmin.com/automotive/nulink_traffic_coverage.ht...)
2. Garmin NuLink NAVTEQ Traffic (http://www8.garmin.com/automotive/nulink_traffic_coverage.ht...)
3. NAVTEQ HD Traffic (http://www.navteq.com/hdtraffic/index.html)

Option 1 seems to cover major roads and offers flow information on most of them. Minor roads tend to only receive incident information.

Option 2 seems to have more coverage areas but Garmin is not very specific on what roads are covered or what information is transmitted (i.e. flow, incident, or both). Maybe this one offers information more similar to what their website includes?

Option 3 seems to be the detailed but isn't offered in countries like Canada. Garmin says it's more detailed information but isn't specific.

I wonder how Option 2 compares with Option 3.

Why doesn't Garmin come out with a traffic coverage which pulls over the internet from your iPhone or Android smartphone (which virtually everyone has these days) as opposed to using antiquated FM receivers. Heck, it's 2012! The smartphone could then send that data from an app via bluetooth back to the Nuvi. Simple in my opinion.

I have both a nuvi 760 with traffic and the Garmin USA onboard app for my iPhone. Here in the SF Bay Area the traffic offered through the Garmin app on my iPhone is VASTLY superior to that on my 760.

This includes level of detail and accuracy. I was totally fed up with traffic inaccuracy on my nuvi and on a number of occasions have had the Garmin USA be accurate to within a tenth of mile.

Just my personal observations.

I have a 765t with a lifetime traffic subscription and I too have been experiencing problems. Many times I don't event get the traffic icon in areas where I know the antenna is receiving a good traffic signal.

I have tried changing the the cable (with antenna) and even the mount, but it is still hit and miss.

Has anyone contacted Garmin about this issue?

The subscription that lets you see the traffic informaiton (limited as it is) is on the power cord, not the nuvi. When I travel, I use a power cord from my 765t. I use the same cord on my 760 sometimes and also on my 885t. Any of the three of them will get the traffic information if plugged into that cable. I have another power cable with a clear channel subscription that I keep plugged into my 885t. It is the original 760 power cable. Doesn't matter, it works fine on the 885t. This only works for nuvis which can use the same power cord but that is all three of my nuvis.

I agree with the assessment that the Navteq and Clear Channel information isn't terribly useful. Mostly I think it's the time lag.

Jim

Because the general direction of GPS industry now is to put everything exactly on the smartphone and to retire standalone GPS unit as such. This was the choice Navigon consciously made several years ago, for instance, and most likely we will see more like that in the future. As I posted above, Navteq shows the traffic on many local streets, but if you open up Google Maps and check "Traffic", you will see that Google covers pretty much every street in the city, and neither Navteq, nor ClearChannel, nor Tomtom HD Traffic don't even come close to this level of coverage (as cagpsfan has confirmed in their comment). But you won't be able to have that on your GPS unit - only on smartphone, and this is exactly the plan, and that's where the competition is today, and that's where development money goes. Here's just one article of many about this:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405680,00.asp

Standalone GPS Devices are Dying

(...) Sales of portable navigation devices (PNDs) have been declining for several years now. With Apple's announcement yesterday, Garmin, TomTom, and Magellan's prospects just dimmed a little more on the hardware side. There will be a market for standalone devices for some time, of course, since not everyone has smartphones. But with the top two mobile OSes holding 80 percent of sales, and smartphones now commanding over 50 percent of all new phone sales, it's clear where the market is headed.

Another PCMAG prognosticator. They have a dismal track record of being correct in predicting trends. You have to remember this is the opinion of one writer for a magazine whose sole purpose is to promote everything produced by PC manufacturers. It must be why so many of their "articles" are edited press releases.

Personally, I stopped paying attention to them over 20 years ago when the pages of ads outnumbered the pages of articles.

It may be a pricing issue.

TomTom offers two systems for traffic reception. One series of GPS models uses an FM receiver built into the power cable, which has no additional cost after the purchase, but covers only the major roads and has updates at intervals of about 15 minutes.

Another series of models has a dedicated cell phone built into the GPS. That data covers a much larger range of roads and receives updates at intervals of about 2-3 minutes. The "HD Traffic" reception is free for the first year but costs $60 per year after that - although there are *rumors* (wishful thinking?) that the price may drop.

The models with the internal cell phone are more expensive, partially because of the extra hardware and partially because TomTom has to pay a fee to the local cell phone company in each country for that first year's coverage. (AT&T in the US, Rogers in Canada, Vodaphone in much of Europe.)

It *may* be that Garmin has not offered similar capability because they feel that the cost increases that would be incurred by adding cell phone capability would not be a good business decision. Only Garmin can say for sure.

With best wishes,
- Tom -

Well, I'm guessing you guys didn't look all that closely, because for years Garmin has offered an Internet based content delivery system that didn't require any cellphone at all, because it was built in to the navigator. It was called nulink - I think service may still be available, but it was a dismal marketing failure.

Look up the Nuvi 1690 and 1695.

Then there's Garmin's newer 'Live' service that operates through their 'smartphone link' that integrates the Nuvi and Android phones through an app. It is available on the Nuvi 2475, 2495, 2595, 3490 and 3590.

So if you wanted it, it is already available.

While the nuLink service on the 1690 and 1695 did not require a cellphone, I think it was based on the AT&T cellular network ... that is what you were paying for in the subscription fees. I guess I don't know if the content itself was Internet based, but wasn't the wireless connection cellular and not WiFi?

Nulink did/does use AT&T's network in the USA and Rogers' network in Canada. The first 2 years of service in the US (1 year in Canada) were/are included - it was/is $5/month thereafter.

You may be confusing the term 'Internet-based' with 'Web-based'. Nulink used/uses the internet to carry traffic.

All of these services we're discussing (with the exception of the RDS and HD traffic) are carried over cellular networks. You can toss a boulder farther than WiFi would carry.

I wonder, how do you think internet content could be delivered to the moving GPS if not by the means of internal cellphone? do you think it comes from satellite?

A cellphone is a wireless communication device you use to make telephone calls over a wireless network (technically even a conventional cordless phone is a cellphone, albeit one that operates in a single, private cell).

Merriam Webster defines "Cell Phone" as follows:

"a portable usually cordless telephone for use in a cellular system"

I'm not quite sure how they see how a corded cell phone might work unless they are referring the possibility that it could be mains powered and thus tethered to a wall socket.

There is no cellphone in a nulink device. Accessing the cellular network is done without requiring a separate cellphone or any other network access device.

What is inside the Nulink equipped devices is a GSM cellular transceiver module.

On the other hand Garmin's current Smartphone Link devices require that you have an Android powered device (it need not be a cellphone, you could use a suitably equipped Android-powered tablet) with Internet data access (it need not even be a cellular network in the traditional sense) and connect to the Internet via a Bluetooth data connection to that device (the term is tethered).

Class dismissed.

Here on Long Island, secondary roads get coverage. I get traffic reports for my commute that involves both NY-107 and NY-109. In fact, I get a lot of false reports for NY-109 often showing me a yellow icon and telling me about a one minute delay. There is currently construction in that particular area but the reports seem more advisory than actual traffic delays.

I guess, you are the only one who took this as if the GPS has inside a real flip-flop cellphone that you can buy in the mall. Clarification: "cellphone inside" means that the GPS is using private cellphone network in order to access public Internet, and accordingly has inside the device that facilitates it, which from the network's point of view looks like another cellphone.

A cell phone is just that; a cellular telephone.

There's a world of difference between having a cell phone and using a cellular network to transmit data.

By the way, by convention the carriers are considered 'public', not private because they allow anyone with the cost of entry to use their networks if their equipment is homologated for use and (in this case) has an appropriate SIM card.

We don't know whether the application uses the GPRS or GSM data paths on a circuit switched or session basis - they could just be delivering SMS class messages over control channels. It clearly is NOT a cell phone from the network's perspective. It is most likely a data-only GPRS or GSM transceiver, likely tied to a dedicated private data subgroup.

Note that cellular is not the only wide area data transmission mechanism available. There are PMR networks like Mobitex too.

By the way, it COULD come via satellite (not that it does, in part because the antennas are simply too large for practcal deployment in mass consumer mobile applications) - there are several public satellite networks available for data transmission including Iridium, Inmarsat, Orbcomm, Globalstar and several that are coming on line in the next few years.

Garmin used an embedded cellular modem provided by AT&T. One of the key points is it is/was a machine to machine connection to a dedicated location across the public wireless switched network.

Really?

As per my understanding, all traffic info is provided by Navteq. Garmin has nothing to do with it.
Whatever info Navteq has it on http://here.com/traffic will be available on your Garmin. I have always compared info on this web site.
But it is surprising that Navteq's information is very poor. I live Toronto Canada area. Lots of times I have seen Navteq has no info about highway 407 closures for constructions at night. If you check Google maps, it is all there. I hope Navteq fixs it one day.

I tried HD traffic in Buffalo and Pittsburgh. Then I tried Live traffic in these places, Live traffic was equally good for highways.

PS: I hope Microsoft acquires Navteq maps and traffic section as well. They will make it better to compete with Google.

Yes, long since discontinued however. In Canada they used the Roger's network.

The business news reports emphasize that the two major surviving Nokia businesses are network hardware and navigation. The whole navigation business bears the name Here. I don't think they'll be giving it up soon.

I am not sure if Garmin was using Cellular modem in their devices. But I know for sure TOMTOM does for HD traffic.

If Garmin is using cellular modem then why they are offering Live services which use your Cell Phone's data to get live information?

one unit a couple of years ago. It lasted only one or two years before dying.

OK, thanks for the info.