As I type this, my family and I are on E/B I-94 en route to Milwaukee. As planned, My wife is driving and I am navigating. I am using both the Garmin DriveLuxe 51 and a Sonim XP8 with Google Maps. Google Maps alerts us the slow downs, crashes and speed traps. Garmin is lagging behind. Garmin really needs to start making better use of data available with live internet connectivity.
Since they are using Here maps anyway, would Here already offer the information?
using a smart phone using data to get that information.
Best of my knowledge there are Garmin GPS's that can do that connecting to and using a smartphone' data plan as well.
Just to correct your "internet" statement, you are not using the internet but data.
I have often thought Garmin should come out with a version that would give limited access to the WWW for those that do not want or have a smart phone. One would have to sign up with an appropriate carrier "if" you wanted to take advantage of that feature. There would be a modest fee for the subscription and data used but as it would only apply to road reports and Foursquare searches it could be kept "reasonable".
That would be neat if you could tether off your phone with a unit to access the internet.
Garmin Smartphone Link does just that … uses the data connection on your phone to show traffic, incidents, weather, etc. and also for finding places using FourSquare. I know it is debatable whether Smartphone Link reporting is as good as other apps like Google navigation, Waze, etc.
I have both (Google Navigation using Android Auto and Garmin Smartphone Link). I often run them side by side. I suspect Google is somewhat better at live reporting because there are more users contributing to the "crowd sourcing" that drives it. That said, there have been times when Smartphone Link reported something that Google missed (and vice versa).
I still prefer the Garmin with Smartphone Link over Google for general purpose navigation … mostly because of the information that Garmin displays on the navigation screen and the way it gives navigation prompts, not because of the live reporting.
With Garmin and Smartphone link, you basically need to have 2 devices to do the same thing as one with Google Maps. Even though I prefer a standalone GPS, they will be gone the way of the dinosaur soon. My DS 55 will be the last Garmin that I buy. It's kind of pointless to buy a GPS when you already have a smartphone that can do the same thing. You can download an offline map if you don't want to use data.
As far as I use mine a smartphone simply doesn't do the same, so I'll be sticking to a separate GPS for a while yet
On the same note, I recently tripped from NC to SD. My Garmin took me up rt 29 from St Joseph. Google maps took me across the Missouri and up rt 75. Reason being, rt 29 was closed in many places because the Missouri was not obeying its bank limits. The bridge Garmin wanted me to cross was TOTALLY under water.
I created a route using Google maps and uploaded it, then lost my mind and forgot to use it. Result, 100 mile detour. My fault.
I would think the traffic data around St Joseph would warn of closed roads like 29 a major highway north being under water. That, apparently, doesn't count as traffic.
Aren't any situations like that well covered on AM radio stations.
Seems to me that's about all the talk about at times like that.
So when do we transition from "horse and buggy" and move on to use modern devices with real-time data, searches and true hands-off navigation? I am going on a road trip for a month in August and will not even take the Garmin. Too many better options.
Does the Smartphone link show up on the Nuvi?
The more complicated the info gathering gets, the more chance of failure. I see the Phone vs GPS wars as a bad thing forcing more complicated and thus more likely to fail programs
I still prefer my old nuvi with fm traffic over my newer Garmin with data from phone via Bluetooth (overly complicated and ties up phone, might as well just use phone map app.)
The data is much more coarse then Google maps. On the other hand I don't get an attempted reroute for several miles to save a minute (which often leads to new delays that weren't anticipated at reroute time).
What are the differences, pros/cons, of Smartphone Link vs Garmin Lifetime HD Traffic?
Just recently got a Nuvi with Lifetime HD Traffic. It is way, way better than my other Nuvi with FM traffic. What does Smartphone Link have that Lifetime HD Traffic doesn't, in terms of traffic and routing?
I get it that Smartphone Link uses data, but is HD Traffic inferior?
A bit confused.
Not a fan of the smartlink app. It has failed me many times. Get caught in traffic and nothing on the garmin. Open google and it shows all red. FAIL Bad experience for me.
For me, Smartphone Link has coverage in my state, where I live and where I normally drive. Garmin HD/FM Traffic only has coverage (in Iowa) in the Des Moines, Omaha metro and Quad cities areas. And my experience has been that the reporting with Smartphone Link is more comprehensive and accurate even in the areas that have FM coverage. YMMV.
I drive from Detroit to Laredo, basically only on interstate highways. A number of times my Garmin has alerted me to possible traffic congestion telling me how far away I am from there as well as an estimate of time for being held up. But also many times as I get closer that same info disappears since the congestion is gone.
I’ve had my DriveSmart 65 for three months now. I had a TomTom Go 60S for about three years before trying Garmin.
Definitely love the screen, features, ease of use. Live traffic is just not good, at least here in middle Tennessee.
Compared with TomTom, the live traffic feature was 95 percent better than Garmin. It wasn’t perfect but it’s ages better than Garmin.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that Apple is in a partnership with TomTom.
Garmin Traffic is provided by HERE Maps. Which was acquired a few years ago by three automakers and they’re hoping that most of the automakers adopt HERE Maps.
I won’t keep on rambling. I’m keeping my Garmin for 3 or four years. I just hope their traffic gets better over time.
To me that’s my biggest gripe about my Garmin. Traffic is not even good enough. At least in my area.
Just to be clear, I assume you are comparing TomTom "live" traffic to Garmin Smartphone Link traffic and not to Garmins FM traffic services (Garmin Traffic and HD traffic). I have never used a TomTom, but have heard that their live services are quite good.
... In Europe Garmin live or digital traffic is excellent, and far better than the old 'FM' system used originally by Garmin. Not only do we get reports of traffic delays but also reasons, eg object in road, accident, overturned vehicle etc.
I have started to compare my Garmin results with Waze and Google Maps. So far, I prefer Google maps, it has the best navigation, if there is traffic, it finds an alternate route. Garmin will not change the route as quickly and you wind up on the route with traffic. I have been having trouble with Waze, it takes forever to open and fine the route and the sound doesnt work so I have to look on my phone. Google maps reads out the turns load and clear. I wish the Garmin was more like Google maps. I cant understand why they can't improve their mapping software.
The purpose of using your smartphone is to get live data as Google maps gives you re accidents, construction, flooded roads, etc.
The issue is I don't have unlimited data, in fact, only about 500MB/month.
Offline maps would be good, but no different than a Nuvi as there is no real time road conditions associated with them.
The only thing I can do is to create a route with Google maps and upload it to my Nuvi - then all I have to do is remember how to use it.
i would guess from your post you have never lost cell coverage any place you drive. I drive a truck and there are a great number of places where my cell cover goes bye bye and my Garmin just keeps running and getting me there.
Good info here
Exactly, some spot on i95, i87, i91, no signal at all, how can
we have data? That's big problem for us.
When I got my 1690 it had data through AT&T and was great, with real time options. It made the GPS so much more valuable. It was free the first 2 years then $60/yr. Sorry to see it never caught on and was discontinued.
I thought, and still think, that the Garmin nüLink 1690/1695. I suppose today it might use Bluetooth to get data from your smartphone. I Am just assuming that the "nüLink! service" wasn't profitable enough to keep it going.
Roughly 10 years ago I bought Garmin Mobile XT. It was Garmin maps on a micro SD that installed on an Android smartphone. I bought a used Pharos GPS Phone 600e smartphone years ago to use with Garmin Mobile XT. It had a lot of those same features, like traffic, weather, fuel price and flight status info. I think there was even a movie tab, which showed what movies, at which theaters and the showing times.
It's prob not worth it for Garmin. Cost of engineers and R&D is quite expensive nowadays, Garmin won't likely get enough revenue for non-crucial features
terms | privacy | contactCopyright © 2006-2019