replacing old poi files (at POI Factory)

 

I just download the newest rest area us.csv poi file and I am assuming that it is a replacement for the older rest area forty eight csv file. I have a ton of poi files that are duplicate because they are renamed. Because it is a much smaller files I question if it is as complete as the older file. Just want to make sure that I am not deleting a lot of files that I shouldn't.

I am still figuring that one

I am still figuring that one out;) I will be doing some more checking to see if it is just an update.

Miss Poi

Seems to be missing the information in the 4th column

miss poi wrote:

I am still figuring that one out;) I will be doing some more checking to see if it is just an update.

Miss Poi

The fourth column of the 48 state version tells what services are available. I looked at it and decided to keep the old version for my use.

--
Garmin StreetPilot c530, Mapsource

Only 48 states

It appears that all the author of the 'RestAreasUs' did was delete the 4th column, the column containing all of the important information. It has the identical number of rest areas as the '48 states'; so it appears it's only 48 states and not 50 as he infers. In addition he didn't give credit to the authors of the orginal individual Rest Area files .... a real big no-no!

I don't know what he means by "modified for use with Garmin C330". Is he saying that four column POIs won't display correctly on the C330?

Real confusing. Unless there's a real good reason not to, I'd be for removing it (or at least correctly stating what it is.)

RT

PS Miss POI, You covered this very thing at this Duplicate Files post.

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

I really appreciate your

I really appreciate your imput. I think I'll do as you suggest and just keep the older file.

Thanks guys, I have removed

Thanks guys, I have removed the new file.

Miss Poi

Solution

I have been having a discussion with the member who submitted the edited file and I think that I will make his file an attachment on the original page for those that have limited display area on their units. That way people have a choice.

Miss Poi

Good Idea

miss poi wrote:

I have been having a discussion with the member who submitted the edited file and I think that I will make his file an attachment on the original page for those that have limited display area on their units. That way people have a choice.

Miss Poi

Very good idea, Miss POI. Would it be good to rename it so it reflects it's 48 states and won't be mistaken for one containing 50 states?

Thanks.
RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

I will get that correction

I will get that correction made this evening, the kids and I are at a special story time at the library right now:)

Miss Poi

Duplicate Files

If you look at the data presented in the file, you will notice that the data was standardized for a short format. It was necessary because of all the many file formats that was attached into a non standard arrangement. If you wish, the fourth column can be linked back in. Some of the data was extracted from the fourth column to standardize the the third column if you look at it.

Non-Standard Format???

franklinom wrote:

It was necessary because of all the many file formats that was attached into a non standard arrangement.

Garmin's 'Standard csv Format', per the 'Help' in POI Loader, is as follows:

The following are examples of Custom POIs in the proper format:
-94.81549,38.80390,Bonita
-94.79731,38.81099,Ridgeview@25
-94.74240,38.81952,Heritage Park,Perfect site for a picnic
-94.76416,38.81227,Garmin,"1200 E. 151st Street
Olathe,KS 66062
913/397.8300"

All of the individual authors had their files in Garmin's "Proper Format". Combining these files into one POI kept the file in Garmin's "Proper format".

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

Non-Standard Format???

The format I was speeking of is field three and four and what it contained
Example of current data taken from file on different lines:
-94.0167,33.47345,I-30 MM 1 Eastbound,"Welcome Center"
-80.71393,41.56373,RT 11 Rest Area North And South Bound,
-114.282664,32.666785,Ligurata Rest Area,"I8 22 mi east of Yuma"
Facilities: Parking only, 9 spaces, no facilities, not lighted"
-96.12123,39.06026,I-70 Westbound MM 336,"Restrooms, Phones"
-82.659052,42.790154,Adair Rest Area 909,I-94 EB
-87.9516,42.5187,I-94 (exit 347) - Kenosha,Exit 347
-95.2803,32.0297,Rest Area .01vv0,US 69 North of Jacksonville Internet
-78.95415,38.25053,RT 81 Rest Area North Bound,

Example of data in a standardized short form for viewing on a unit with limited display area.
-94.0167,33.47345,I-30 MM 1 EB,
-93.26088,33.92861,I-30 MM 56 EB,
-93.2493,33.93948,I-30 MM 56 WB,
-92.8897,34.35124,I-30 MM 93 EB,
-92.89254,34.35077,I-30 MM 93 WB,
-94.39916,35.45893,I-40 MM 2 EB,
-93.85333,35.51987,I-40 MM 36 EB,

The proper format has been preserved for upload, just field entrys aligned in a standard arangement.

How to Publish Your First POI

If I'm reading this thread correctly, the new quick way to publish a POI is:
(a) take a good POI off the database
(b) remove field 4 or combine it with field 3
(c) abbreviate words in field 3
(d) rename it as a 'reduced display'
(e) upload it as your own with no mention of the authors of the individual files.

What a great way for a newbee to put together their first POI. Soon they will find an even easier and faster way .... use POI Verifier to create 'state files' from United State POIs and upload them as their own.

This is contrary to Miss POI's guidelines, quote: "Please check the alphabetical list of poi files before posting your file to make sure that it is not a duplicate file." and "People take pride in being the authors of these files and like to get the credit that they deserve. By posting a duplicate file you are taking the spotlight off of their hard work.". Considering that quote and the time/effort so many hard working members have put into constructing the 1,000,000 POIs .... this is, as Ex-Pres Bush would say, "Just Not Prudent"! The file and badge should be removed, and any recurrence should be disallowed. If we're going to have published guidelines, shouldn't they be followed by EVERYONE?

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

I agree with RT

I agree with retiredtechnician... I know I work long and hard on the POI's I submit.... gathering addresses, getting coordinates... filling the columns...verifying and such. We all need to abide by the standards of this site and maintain its integrity.

--
My Toys: MacBook Pro Unibody, Nuvi 2589

old poi

This comment has been moved here.

--
[URL=http://www.speedtest.net][IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/693683800.png[/IMG][/URL]

Guidelines

retiredtechnician wrote:

If I'm reading this thread correctly, the new quick way to publish a POI is:
(a) take a good POI off the database
(b) remove field 4 or combine it with field 3
(c) abbreviate words in field 3
(d) rename it as a 'reduced display'
(e) upload it as your own with no mention of the authors of the individual files.

What a great way for a newbee to put together their first POI. Soon they will find an even easier and faster way .... use POI Verifier to create 'state files' from United State POIs and upload them as their own.

This is contrary to Miss POI's guidelines, quote: "Please check the alphabetical list of poi files before posting your file to make sure that it is not a duplicate file." and "People take pride in being the authors of these files and like to get the credit that they deserve. By posting a duplicate file you are taking the spotlight off of their hard work.". Considering that quote and the time/effort so many hard working members have put into constructing the 1,000,000 POIs .... this is, as Ex-Pres Bush would say, "Just Not Prudent"! The file and badge should be removed, and any recurrence should be disallowed. If we're going to have published guidelines, shouldn't they be followed by EVERYONE?

RT

Good points RT –

Miss poi’s guidelines in the post you mentioned still stand and need to be featured more prominently on the site. She will incorporate them into the FAQ section so they are easier for people to find.

Some of the limitations of our current approach for managing data are becoming more apparent. We need a solution that gives users more flexibility when they’re downloading a file so that it displays as they want it to on their nav system. Ideally, a user should be able to choose which pieces of data to include in their download and how they are formatted. This is where my efforts are focused for the next batch of improvements to the site.

Your post also spotlights another issue. On one hand, we do not want to clutter the site with a lot of duplicated data. On the other hand, if someone takes time to reformat data so that it looks nice on their nav system, there may be other users who could benefit from their work. If not handled carefully, however, this could very quickly turn into a big mess.

Future improvement to the site will eliminate many of these issues, but here are some additional guidelines for handling things in the interim (some fine-tuning may be required)

(edit -- see changes in later post: http://www.poi-factory.com/node/4844#comment-17949; the draft guidelines below are outdated).

1) Reformatted versions of existing data should not be published as new files. Instead, they can be attached to the original file’s page along with a dated note explaining the difference in formatting. Even though substantial effort may have been involved, a “POI Contributor” badge will not be given for simply reformatting existing data. This is so we do not encourage the type of behavior mentioned in RT’s post.

2) Any new data should be added to the original file. Additional files can also be updated, but this not a requirement. As such, additional files may become “out of date” as the original file is updated. Use notes to communicate the status of additional files.

3) There may be situations where an original file contains errors or was incorrectly formatted (not compliant with Garmin CSV or GPX standards). In such cases, the original file may be replaced with a corrected version. Miss poi will do her best to work with all parties involved and arrive at an optimal solution.

My PHP programming skills are gradually improving, but it still takes a lot of time and effort to create new functionality. I will do my best to release improvements as quickly as possible, but I am also being careful to maintain a solid, stable platform.

Thanks all,

JM

Old POI

Not to take away from all the hard work each individual made to collect the data on rest stops, it was unusable by me. My question is, when you can only display 20 characters from field 3, and nothing from field 4, how am I to use the existing POI file without modifying it? There probably a large number of newbees that would like to have this information but do not know how to extract the data to use it. I did not know there were rules about giving credit. Newbees make mistakes. That is why all you experienced users oversee the process.
My question is, why hasn't this came up before about the number of displayable characters on a GPS unit, and how can we make useable data available to owners of all units with out modifying it?

More Questions

JM wrote:

“POI Contributor” badge will not be given for simply reformatting existing data

I realize you can't verify the validity of every POI that's uploaded, but in this case it was posted as 'new' and a badge was given .... sort of got the fire burning under the pot. To your credit you did quickly get the badge issue resolved, but what can be done to prevent this from happening in the future? Some sort of appointed 'POI Patrol'??

If there are enough GPSs that only accept the 3 field POI, would it be possible to start a POI download page containing only the 'Modified From Previous POI' files with links back to the original POI? This not only would make it much eaier for these individuals to find their workable POIs; it would also keep the original author's download page less cluttered, with less confusion, and without the file they would rather not have to look at.
But if this can't be done ........

JM wrote:

Reformatted versions of existing data should not be published as new files. Instead, they can be attached to the original file’s page along with a dated note explaining the difference in formatting.

Would it be possible to put this comment below the original file, next to the modified file?
Can this comment contain name and date indicating the comment provider so the download site doesn't incorrectly reflect it being the original author?
Since this is not done in this case would it be OK for me to change the comment to indicate it as such?

This is a very popular download (1800+). Since I'm a stickler for 'giving credit where credit is due', I need it known that the authors of this Rest Area file are adcsusn, johnycrash, ndynamics, RetiredTechnician, Robert660, and auggie. They are the ones who did the hard work.

This is the best GPS site going ..... sure don't want to see that change! Some authors go the extra mile by verifing their POI locations against mapping software. These authors need to be assured their work isn't being done in vain. I, for one, truely appreciate it. Thanks, gang.

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

Hhhnmm

franklinom wrote:

... I did not know there were rules about giving credit.

One word that comes to mind.....plagiarism

and in case you don't know what it is, here's the definition:

the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

franklinom wrote:

... Newbees make mistakes.

Has nothing to do with being a newbee. It's a common sense.

--
Garmin nüvi® 660, iPhone 8gb (Technology is not the solution. It's only a tool to help you achieve it.)

3 vs 4 Field POI's

retiredtechnician wrote:

If there are enough GPSs that only accept the 3 field POI, would it be possible to start a POI download page containing only the 'Modified From Previous POI' files with links back to the original POI? This not only would make it much eaier for these individuals to find their workable POIs; it would also keep the original author's download page less cluttered, with less confusion, and without the file they would rather not have to look at.

As the user of a TomTom the 3 field POI's would be greatly appreciated! As it is, I modify/edit most POI's I download from this site to conform to the os2 format - 3 fields: Info, Latitude, and Logitude.

Also, the POI's I've created for the Factory have only 3 fields, but they've been converted into .csv format making it necessary for some users to have to convert them into 4 field POI's.

I have to agree with RT's statement about making it easier.

ML

--
Freedom isn't free...thank you veterans! Heard about the tests to detect PANCREATIC CANCER? There aren't any! In Memoriam: #77 NYPD-SCA/Seattle Mike/Joe S./Vinny D./RTC...and God bless Donald Trump!

Tough decision for JM and Miss poi...

Mike L. wrote:

As the user of a TomTom the 3 field POI's would be greatly appreciated! As it is, I modify/edit most POI's I download from this site to conform to the os2 format - 3 fields: Info, Latitude, and Logitude.

Also, the POI's I've created for the Factory have only 3 fields, but they've been converted into .csv format making it necessary for some users to have to convert them into 4 field POI's.

I have to agree with RT's statement about making it easier.

Maintaining multiple reformatted files will result in a maintenance nightmare as JM previously mentioned. When dealing with a large dataset such as POI's, the only way to keep the data up-to-date and synchronized with different format files is to maintain the data in a database and generate desired file format 'on-the-fly'. And I believe JM is probably looking at this solution.

However, this solution brings up another interesting dilemma of how to give credit to contributors as everyone's data will be merged. Also, RT has a good point that some authors (including myself) do go the extra mile by verifing their POI locations against mapping software, but if POI's lose their owner's identity there will be no incentives for them to 'go the extra mile'.

Boy, I don't envy JM and miss poi.

Personally, all of the POI's I've uploaded so far are kept in my SQL database so I can generate GPX files based on my selection criteria. I haven't (nor I'm never going to) put any POI's I downloaded into this database because of my respect for other contributors' work. This also ensures that all my future upload will be my work.

--
Garmin nüvi® 660, iPhone 8gb (Technology is not the solution. It's only a tool to help you achieve it.)

Old POI

franklinom, have you modified any other files? I need them for my C330. Let me know if you have

Database

theTraveler wrote:

Maintaining multiple reformatted files will result in a maintenance nightmare as JM previously mentioned. When dealing with a large dataset such as POI's, the only way to keep the data up-to-date and synchronized with different format files is to maintain the data in a database and generate desired file format 'on-the-fly'. And I believe JM is probably looking at this solution....

Yup -- I’ve been working on designing the new database structure, and it’s turning out to be fairly complex. The approach I’m taking divides information from existing files into POI records (locations) and POI Collections (groups of locations).

POI records each describe a single location. Here are a few of the fields the table will contain:

• longitude
• latitude
• elevation
• name
• address
• city
• state
• postal_code
• phone_number
• notes

Other tables will hold information for POI Collections and which POI records they link to. It will eventually be possible to include the same POI record in more than one POI collection.

For example, the same POI record for a particular restaurant could be included in Collections like “PF Chang Restaurants”, “Denver Favorite Restaurants”, and “Business Dining”.

With POI records (locations) de-coupled from POI Collections (aka POI files), there will be more ways for people to participate on the site. People can still focus on building and maintaining a group of locations from scratch, but it will be a lot easier for others to share individual locations or build interesting Collections from locations already in the database.

Here are a few examples:

• “Person A” creates a new POI Collection from scratch for a national store chain like Nordstrom
• “Person B”, working local collections, links a Nordstrom store to “Downtown Portland Lunch Spots” (for the in-store restaurant)
• “Person B” also adds a new location for “British Tea Garden” and includes it in the “Downtown Portland Lunch Spots”
• “Person C” starts a new collection “Vegan Friendly Restaurants” and links the Nordstrom store and several other restaurants already in the database

Credit/recognition will be tracked separately for each POI record and each POI Collection. From the example above:

• Person A is credited for the “Nordstrom” Collection and all of the Nordstrom locations they gathered to build it
• Person B is credited for “Downtown Portland Lunch Spots” and for locations he/she entered (like “British Tea Garden” but not the Nordstrom store)
• Person C is credited for “Vegan Friendly Restaurants” but none of the pre-existing locations.

When downloading a POI file from a Collection, users will eventually be able to choose how they want the data formatted. For example -- One user might want 3 column CSV with just the lat/lon/name. Another might want 4 column CSV, with address/phone added in the forth column.

There are quite a few other details I’m working into the design, like managed/unmanaged POIs, change tracking, etc. The trick will be putting this all together in a way that's easy to use.

JM

sounds like Chinese algebra

sounds like Chinese algebra

--
My Toys: MacBook Pro Unibody, Nuvi 2589

Copyright Law?

One issue that probably needs to be addressed more fully is that of Software Copyright Law.

In reference to Computer Software, "In the United States, an original work becomes protected by the copyright laws from the moment it is 'fixed in a tangible medium'." (Disk, floppy, HD, etc). Registration is optional.

According to the Government Copyright Office, "A 'computer program' is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result."

Is a GPS a Computer? Many do have a CPU. Is a POI 'Software'? It does consist of 'a set of statements or instructions'. Does this mean every POI is copyrighted from the instant it hits the author's hard drive?

I'm no lawyer and don't pretend to know the law; but those statements would make me very nervous. Until this fiasco can be ironed out I would like to see the files with 'possible infringements' be removed. In addition, for the time being, I believe I'll refrain from uploading any additional POIs.

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

Disclaimer

If one must alter the file and/or change the format, in order to use a POI on a GPSr, will that constitute a copyright infringement?

If the answer is yes then perhaps a disclaimer is needed on all POI's stating that the author gives permission to alter said file to make it compatible for use in the various GPSr units.

Just a thought!

ML

--
Freedom isn't free...thank you veterans! Heard about the tests to detect PANCREATIC CANCER? There aren't any! In Memoriam: #77 NYPD-SCA/Seattle Mike/Joe S./Vinny D./RTC...and God bless Donald Trump!

Take it easy on the newbie!!!

I agree that everyone works hard (and I have not created any files so far, but have taken advantage of some of the wonderful ones others here have put so much hard work into) but give the guy a break. He sounds like he felt he made a contribution and posted it as his contribution. Now you have people speaking of suing for copyright infringement. Everyone puts these files together for the common good. Most courts apply a "make whole" doctrine which attempts to put the plaintiff in the financial position that they would have been in if the defendant had not broken the law. Seeing as no one expects any financial compensation for their work here, they would probably have no case.

I have been a member of poi-factory for several months and this is the first time I have seen so many negative comments posted on a subject. My opinion is if this happens again, politely correct the offender and remind them of the etiquette rules that apply. If the same person continues to offend, then it's OK to get nasty!

Just my opinion, please don't lash out at me for my comments!! wink

No mention of suing

lotsofspam wrote:

Now you have people speaking of suing for copyright infringement.

I respect your opinion, it's just as important as the next. But for clarities sake, I see no mention of 'suing' in any post in this thread until you mentioned it. All I see about this subject are questions of concern regarding the copyright laws.

RT

--
"Internet: As Yogi Berra would say, "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and verify the other half."

Lets not get carried away...

retiredtechnician wrote:

One issue that probably needs to be addressed more fully is that of Software Copyright Law.

Lets not get carried away. We're all here to share our POI's on a volunteer basis. That's what makes this site great.

retiredtechnician wrote:

Is a POI 'Software'? It does consist of 'a set of statements or instructions'.

No, definitly not. It is a set of data (or if you prefer, a parameters) to drive the GPSr software. And the most important data in these POI files are the coordinates (geocode)...which even the original authors get them from another source. Therefore, we have no right to copyright data that was provided to us for free.

If you still insist that POI's be treated as software, then they fall under the Open Source License and not under the traditional software copyright law.

I think what we should strive for is to respect the work of others and give credit where it's due.

My 2cents

--
Garmin nüvi® 660, iPhone 8gb (Technology is not the solution. It's only a tool to help you achieve it.)

Rest Area file for the lower 48

franklinom, I downloaded the file you modified from the original rest area file and looked at it.
Good job. I completed what you started. I noticed there were many road designations of RT, what a mess.
I found they were state roads, US highways, and Interstates. I used Street Atlas to plot the points to find out what they were. I also fixed the omitted road names. I found several gps errors which I noted in field 4. Maybe this will help the next guy.
I am going to upload it as Rest AreasUS48upd.
I hope the rest of you that have been talking about this will take note. This is a start.
Thank all the guys for all their hard work in collecting the data

Re: Database

JM,

My DB tables are pretty much the same. I do wish the description (my column name for notes) can be used to display on page 2 for my 660. Let me know if you figure it out (without resorting to a hack).

JM wrote:

For example, the same POI record for a particular restaurant could be included in Collections like “PF Chang Restaurants”, “Denver Favorite Restaurants”, and “Business Dining”.

I thought about this too, but because you can only use one icon per file those restaurants will not have separate custom icons. Wish POI Loader can use the symbol tag instead for each location so a single POI file can be associated with multiple icons.

--
Garmin nüvi® 660, iPhone 8gb (Technology is not the solution. It's only a tool to help you achieve it.)

Focus

Perhaps I need to take a step back and refocus.

Reformatted files will become obsolete. With updates that might not be passed down from the original file and a more robust solution coming into view, we can’t afford to burn a lot of energy on an interim solution.

In my post a day back, my intent was to put forward a quick work-around; but it seems things are still not heading in the right direction.

I don’t really want to encourage anyone to create reformatted files right now. They will eventally become obsolete, and handling them as exceptions to the existing process takes extra energy, particularly on miss poi’s part.

There is a good technical solution to this problem, but it will take time to create and implement. Removing interim distractions will allow this to happen sooner.

So to keep things simple in the interim, let’s leave things as they were before: reformatted files should not be uploaded to the site.

I know they would be useful to some of you in the community, but I need to ask for your patience so that miss poi and I can stay focused and deliver a better long term solution for the site.

JM

Focus

JM,
The long term solution is to establish a standard for field three. Everyone uses this field, and let the users of field four establish a standard for it.

agpstraveler

Content

JM,
Has anyone verified all the entrys in the POI files for errors. I found a few just looking at the data where RT was used for the road designation.

agpstraveler

errors

agpstraveler wrote:

JM,
Has anyone verified all the entrys in the POI files for errors. I found a few just looking at the data where RT was used for the road designation.

No -- other users sometimes provide feedback to the file creator after a file is posted, but this is mostly ad-hoc.

This is another area I'd eventually like to focus on and support with better tools and processes.

JM

You meant to say suggested guidelines

agpstraveler wrote:

The long term solution is to establish a standard for field three. Everyone uses this field, and let the users of field four establish a standard for it.

You meant to say suggested guidelines, right? The only standard that should be applied to these CSV files is from Garmin (see RT's post earlier that outlines the standard format).

Field 3 is a free text field (and rightly so). Although I personally don't create CSV files (I create GPX but the same principle applies), I definitely don't want people telling me how I word the free text fields in my own files (and how it displays on my unit). If you're downloading others' POI, 90+% of hard work is done for you and you should be grateful for those contributors that spent the time creating them (and sharing for your benefit). If you don't like the description, change it yourself and quit complaining to those that did the actual work.

May be you might understand better if you go ahead and create a large POI like the rest areas from scratch. You'll most likely want to word the 3rd field to best suit your unit. Now, think of how you'll feel if someone tells you to word them differently because they don't like how it appears on their unit...

--
Garmin nüvi® 660, iPhone 8gb (Technology is not the solution. It's only a tool to help you achieve it.)

Think about others needs

I was under the impression when posting a poi file on this site, it was to be shared.
Once you post the file, numerous users will download the posted files. I know there are users with limited skill sets and providing them with useable data is necessary. After all what is this site all about, to earn badges. I don’t want a badge, just to help someone. You can go ahead and use the old file if you like, and probably end up in a corn field. I did find errors in the old file.
Lets just work to gether to make this site better by combining our individual needs into a common set of parameters for types of poi files.

Others need or yours?

agpstraveler wrote:

I was under the impression when posting a poi file on this site, it was to be shared.

Yes, SHARED is the key word. No one is forcing you to use it. If you don't like the POI you downloaded, then don't use it. And when 'posting to be shared', that implies posting your own work.

agpstraveler wrote:

After all what is this site all about, to earn badges.

You're way off on this one. I'll defer this to RT.

agpstraveler wrote:

You can go ahead and use the old file if you like, and probably end up in a corn field. I did find errors in the old file.

If you find an error, then the correct course of action should either be informing the original contributor or miss poi/JM of your findings. The best thing anyone can do is to help update the SOR (System of Records), not create another copy to clutter the site.

Besides, that was not what you stated originally. You advocated for setting standard on 3rd/4th columns just so that it fit your screen.

agpstraveler wrote:

...combining our individual needs into a common set of parameters...

And prevent creative freedom? No thanks.

--
Garmin nüvi® 660, iPhone 8gb (Technology is not the solution. It's only a tool to help you achieve it.)

working together

The call by agpstraveler for working together is right on the mark. Miss poi and I are continually amazed by what we're all accomplishing in this community.

Having discussions through a public forum can be challenging, especially when the subject is a little complicated or feelings have been bruised.

It’s easy to misunderstand someone else’s comments or to not be heard correctly. Usually though, I believe people's underlying intent is in line with the good of the community. It just might take some work to sort out the right way forward and then get everyone on the same page smile

JM

Errors

JM,
Did you check out the errors I put into field four of the data I uploaded?

The data in the old rest stop file cannot be used as it is for entry level GPS units.

If I was traveling on I-80 and using the old file, I would not be able to match some of the restareas using "I-80" to find the closest stop.
I think this is the reason franklinom started the project. He sure has a point for standardization.

issue notes

agpstraveler wrote:

JM,
Did you check out the errors I put into field four of the data I uploaded? ....

I see them, and I'll ask Miss poi to work on coordinating contacts with original file authors. (She's had a stiff neck since Tuesday and is taking it easy today, so it may be a day or so before work on these issues moves along.)

On a related note -- I've been looking at including change management features in the new database so messages could be attached to a file or locations in a file. This would make it easier to keep track of issues and communicate their status.

JM

Incorrect latitude and or longitude

agpstraveler wrote:

I don’t want a badge, just to help someone. You can go ahead and use the old file if you like, and probably end up in a corn field. I did find errors in the old file.
Lets just work to gether to make this site better by combining our individual needs into a common set of parameters for types of poi files.

One of the best advantages of this member community is the ability to obtain corrective data for files from members who use it. Remember, the 6 million built in POIs from Garmin (Navteq) have errors that take many years to be corrected. If you find an error in any of the POIs, the first attempt is to contact the author with any adjustments or comments. Most will be very happy to obtain this information and make the correction. (I always give credit in the description to anyone who has corrected my files). If this doesn't work, contact Miss POI who will either contact the author and/or make the corrections. That is the value of a large group of users working together. It is easy for errors to occur in files and we all should recognize that the files posted are a "best effort" by an individual or a group. We should be encouraging newbies to contribute files with information that has not been previously posted.

--
Garmin StreetPilot c530, Mapsource

wow that got sort of...warm

I'm not totally sure of what I've read, but would like to add my thoughts, observations.

Standard format - Garmin set that as stated above.

If a contributor creates a file and "freely" posts it for "free" public use without license (copyright or otherwise) then the "user" should be able to alter to their hearts content...That altered file should not be re-posted as a replacement of the original file.

If someone downloads a file and needs to alter the 3rd / 4th fields in order for the display to be more useful, aesthetically appealing, or fit within limitations of a specific unit that's fine.
That file should not be re-posted or submitted without those facts being known. For example if the Nuvi 200 will only display 20 characters in length and my 550 can display 50 and I use all 50 spaces in a file I've submitted - I would expect a nuvi 200 owner to edit the file as they needed.
I edit files I download all the time...I just don't repost them as new files.

If there are units out there that have character space limitations and files need to be modified then there should be an area for that to happen.

This place is getting so big....I really do not envy JM and Ms Poi. I don't know how they manage.

--
........Garmin StreetPilot c550 / Nüvi 765...........

Replacing old files...not

lsmonop wrote:

I edit files I download all the time...I just don't repost them as new files.

As do a lot of us. The only files we should post (in my humble opinion) are those we create from scratch. Anyone who wants to edit them can do so on their computer for their own purpose. Most PC's come with easy to use editing software "Notepad" and the like, so they can have at it.

It would be nice to have a standard, but with so many different manufacturers (and in some cases the same manufacturer) using different formats for different units that's going to be a tough one.

As you said, JM and Ms Poi do have their work cut out for them and I think do a fine job!!!

Database Status

Hi JM,

I'm a newbie to the poi factory, and I've tried to get a flavor of the site. You and Miss POI have a very good one going here. I came across your post in this forum regarding developing a general POI database that individuals could update one POI at a time. This sounded like a very good idea to me. Did this ever get implemented? Is so, where is it found?

Thanks for a great site!

Yup

gpsMage wrote:

Hi JM,

I'm a newbie to the poi factory, and I've tried to get a flavor of the site. You and Miss POI have a very good one going here. I came across your post in this forum regarding developing a general POI database that individuals could update one POI at a time. This sounded like a very good idea to me. Did this ever get implemented? Is so, where is it found?

Thanks for a great site!

This system has indeed been built, only the Project managers have access to this feature on the files that they maintain.

Miss POI