daknife wrote:If they are asking a person for directions they won't be relying on a GPS. The GPS won't know about the red barn with the faded tobacco ad, or the Oak tree painted red white and blue, or the Smiths farm, or the church (not all churchs are easily recognized as churches and don't always show up on paper maps anyway.) Local landmark navigation? Talk to Cousin Larry. Address based GPS navigation? landmarks are not needed just turn when it tells you to turn. We rely on GPS to get away from having to ask for such directions. If you want to combine them, well when told to turn left at the little white church, and the GPS tells you to turn left and there is a little white church there, then you know it's okay to turn.doctorkb wrote:One thing we're also leaving out... people can get navigation from multiple sources. They could have instructions from their friend on how to get to place X -- having the same data points (which may include "turn left at the church" or "go past the McDonald's") aids the user significantly, even if those instructions aren't read aloud or displayed in text form on the screen.
Smart people don't rely on a single source for navigation, especially in areas they don't know.
When stupid people do rely on one source, they end up in the middle of the Australian outback... or worse.
Cousin Larry gives you some good data... "if you pass the red house with the white fence, you've gone too far"... Google gives you some good data... "turn left on 123 St".
Why is there such a problem with Waze giving both?
I'm not suggesting every little thing be marked... I've deleted my fair share of parking lot landmarks.
But really... unless there's a church on two out of every four corners for 10 blocks, what's the harm in listing them?
Same with the cemeteries?
Sometimes it's just plain interesting. And I'd certainly prefer to know about the cemetery I'm driving next to, than where the nearest Ramada is, with an ugly call-out to point it out.