RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing Eye GPS

[M. Taylor]

Thanks for letting us know, Ed.

I have forwarded your comments to the Nearby Explorer Beta email list.

Mark

-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
Ed Worrell
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 11:44 AM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
Seeing Eye GPS

Hey Mark,

I can confirm that I have the same results in my testing of the apps side by 
side. The NerBy app has a definite issue with telling accurate distances. The 
Seeing Eye GPS is always on target.

Thanks,

Ed
> On Aug 24, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Kramlinger, Keith G., M.D. 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Chip,
> 
> Given the drag on battery when using GPS, how much do you think having maps 
> onboard, as compared to using GoogleMaps or AppleMaps, actually saves?
> 
> Thanks, Keith
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of Chip Orange
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:56 PM
> To: viphone@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as 
> Compared to Seeing Eye GPS
> 
> Thank you Mark for your analysis and testing results.
> 
> I wanted to offer one correction however: GPS apps in no way have to take 
> into consideration their distance from the satellites.  The underlying GPS 
> hardware obviously does, but it simply reports the lat and lon to the app, 
> which then does what it does, but has no interaction with distance from any 
> satellites (I have written a GPS app).  It is also offered an opinion from 
> the GPS hardware as to the likelyhood of the reported position being in 
> error, and an estimate of how large the error might be, but no distance is 
> involved except that the app can then take the estimated error probability, 
> and report it to the user as an error distance (but this is something known 
> to be rather inaccurate).
> 
> All GPS apps designed to be used while in motion need to take into 
> consideration the current speed and direction of the motion, along with their 
> own estimation of how long it will take them to calculate and report a map 
> position (as a car moving at speed can cover quite a distance since the last 
> reported position from the GPS hardware), and it sounds very much like Nearby 
> GPS is not doing this.  Given that use of GPS hardware can drain the battery 
> significantly, most apps also don't constantly query the hardware as to the 
> current position, so more than ever the app needs to compensate for time 
> passed since the last report (along with direction and speed).
> 
> I recall this was also a reported problem for Seeing Eye GPS many years ago 
> (long before it was available on smart phones), and so it looks like it's a 
> problem they've conquored, and so likely will be one APH can conquor.
> 
> Thanks again for the very useful testing,
> 
> Chip
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of M. Taylor
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 7:21 PM
> To: viphone@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared 
> to Seeing Eye GPS
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I sent the following to A.P.H. in response to a test request:
> 
> Mark
> 
> Post:
> Hello Rob, et al,
> 
> Okay, I ran a couple of tests with Nearby Explorer, in a vehicle:
> 
> Note 1:
> I have enough vision to be able to see the physical intersections as I 
> approach them, in a vehicle, and as they pass.
> 
> Note 2:
> The average speed of the car I was riding in did not exceed 50 miles 
> per hour and averaged between 35 to 45 miles per hour.
> 
> Note 3:
> I ran test with (1) only the approach set to be automatically 
> announced and
> (2) only the street name set to be automatically announced.  In either 
> case, the results were the same.
> 
> Note 4:
> There was absolutely no cloud cover in my location today.  It was a 
> beautifully sunny day.  Also, as I live near the beach, there are/were 
> no structures blocking my view of the sky.
> 
> Note 5:
> While I ran Nearby Explorer on my 128GB iPhone 6 Plus, I 
> simultaneously ran Seeing Eye GPS XT on my 64GB iPhone 5 S, for real-time 
> comparison.
> 
> Note 6:
> I ran both apps with the screen turned off.
> 
> Note 7:
> Seeing Eye consistently reported greater GPS accuracy than did Nearby 
> Explorer.
> 
> Note 8:
> Please be aware that I am only concerned with and, therefore tested 
> for intersection announcements while free walking.  This is to say, 
> rarely, if ever, do I use any GPS routing so cannot comment as to the 
> accuracy of that feature.  To me, the most valuable aspect of a GPS 
> solution is the ability to simply launch the app and have 
> cross-street/intersections automatically be announced.
> 
> Note 9:
> Okay, having said all of this, even on an older device, Seeing Eye GPS 
> was remarkably more accurate 

Re: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing Eye GPS

[Andy Baracco]

But the true implication of this depends on where you are. Here in los 
Angeles, the environment is pretty much built over, so the street map does 
not change. I have a working Trekker Maestro, and the maps have not been 
updated in years, but are still accurate. What changes, of course, are the 
POIs.


Andy


-Original Message- 
From: Chip Orange

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:19 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
Seeing Eye GPS


Hi Keith,

I believe it  actually makes very little difference.  Either way, you must 
first use GPS to get your latitude and longitude (I believe this is the big 
drain on power), and then with this info, you lookup your street 
address/location in your map data by either querying via the internet, or 
checking your onboard map database.


It does use additional power to make an internet query for your map data, 
and there will be situations where you are out of range of your cell 
connection, so there are benefits to having the map data onboard; but to 
balance the argument, the internet query maps are usually updated 
constantly, while the onboard maps take so long to download that they are 
updated rather seldom (I don't know how APH is handling this), so are more 
likely to be out of date.


Hth,

Chip


-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Kramlinger, Keith G., M.D.

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:05 PM
To: 'viphone@googlegroups.com'
Subject: RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
Seeing Eye GPS


Hi Chip,

Given the drag on battery when using GPS, how much do you think having maps 
onboard, as compared to using GoogleMaps or AppleMaps, actually saves?


Thanks, Keith

-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf 
Of Chip Orange

Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:56 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
Seeing Eye GPS


Thank you Mark for your analysis and testing results.

I wanted to offer one correction however: GPS apps in no way have to take 
into consideration their distance from the satellites.  The underlying GPS 
hardware obviously does, but it simply reports the lat and lon to the app, 
which then does what it does, but has no interaction with distance from any 
satellites (I have written a GPS app).  It is also offered an opinion from 
the GPS hardware as to the likelyhood of the reported position being in 
error, and an estimate of how large the error might be, but no distance is 
involved except that the app can then take the estimated error probability, 
and report it to the user as an error distance (but this is something known 
to be rather inaccurate).


All GPS apps designed to be used while in motion need to take into 
consideration the current speed and direction of the motion, along with 
their own estimation of how long it will take them to calculate and report a 
map position (as a car moving at speed can cover quite a distance since the 
last reported position from the GPS hardware), and it sounds very much like 
Nearby GPS is not doing this.  Given that use of GPS hardware can drain the 
battery significantly, most apps also don't constantly query the hardware as 
to the current position, so more than ever the app needs to compensate for 
time passed since the last report (along with direction and speed).


I recall this was also a reported problem for Seeing Eye GPS many years ago 
(long before it was available on smart phones), and so it looks like it's a 
problem they've conquored, and so likely will be one APH can conquor.


Thanks again for the very useful testing,

Chip


-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf 
Of M. Taylor

Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 7:21 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
Seeing Eye GPS


Hello All,

I sent the following to A.P.H. in response to a test request:

Mark

Post:
Hello Rob, et al,

Okay, I ran a couple of tests with Nearby Explorer, in a vehicle:

Note 1:
I have enough vision to be able to see the physical intersections as I
approach them, in a vehicle, and as they pass.

Note 2:
The average speed of the car I was riding in did not exceed 50 miles per
hour and averaged between 35 to 45 miles per hour.

Note 3:
I ran test with (1) only the approach set to be automatically announced and
(2) only the street name set to be automatically announced.  In either case,
the results were the same.

Note 4:
There was absolutely no cloud cover in my location today.  It was a
beautifully sunny day.  Also, as I live near the beach, there are/were no
structures blocking my view of the sky.

Note 5:
While I ran Nearby Explorer on my 128GB iPhone 6 Plus, I simultaneously ran

RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing Eye GPS

[Chip Orange]

Hi Keith,

I believe it  actually makes very little difference.  Either way, you must 
first use GPS to get your latitude and longitude (I believe this is the big 
drain on power), and then with this info, you lookup your street 
address/location in your map data by either querying via the internet, or 
checking your onboard map database.

It does use additional power to make an internet query for your map data, and 
there will be situations where you are out of range of your cell connection, so 
there are benefits to having the map data onboard; but to balance the argument, 
the internet query maps are usually updated constantly, while the onboard maps 
take so long to download that they are updated rather seldom (I don't know how 
APH is handling this), so are more likely to be out of date.  

Hth,

Chip


-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
Kramlinger, Keith G., M.D.
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 2:05 PM
To: 'viphone@googlegroups.com'
Subject: RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
Seeing Eye GPS

Hi Chip,

Given the drag on battery when using GPS, how much do you think having maps 
onboard, as compared to using GoogleMaps or AppleMaps, actually saves?

Thanks, Keith

-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
Chip Orange
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:56 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
Seeing Eye GPS

Thank you Mark for your analysis and testing results.

I wanted to offer one correction however: GPS apps in no way have to take into 
consideration their distance from the satellites.  The underlying GPS hardware 
obviously does, but it simply reports the lat and lon to the app, which then 
does what it does, but has no interaction with distance from any satellites (I 
have written a GPS app).  It is also offered an opinion from the GPS hardware 
as to the likelyhood of the reported position being in error, and an estimate 
of how large the error might be, but no distance is involved except that the 
app can then take the estimated error probability, and report it to the user as 
an error distance (but this is something known to be rather inaccurate).

All GPS apps designed to be used while in motion need to take into 
consideration the current speed and direction of the motion, along with their 
own estimation of how long it will take them to calculate and report a map 
position (as a car moving at speed can cover quite a distance since the last 
reported position from the GPS hardware), and it sounds very much like Nearby 
GPS is not doing this.  Given that use of GPS hardware can drain the battery 
significantly, most apps also don't constantly query the hardware as to the 
current position, so more than ever the app needs to compensate for time passed 
since the last report (along with direction and speed).

I recall this was also a reported problem for Seeing Eye GPS many years ago 
(long before it was available on smart phones), and so it looks like it's a 
problem they've conquored, and so likely will be one APH can conquor.

Thanks again for the very useful testing,

Chip


-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
M. Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 7:21 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing 
Eye GPS

Hello All, 

I sent the following to A.P.H. in response to a test request:

Mark

Post:
Hello Rob, et al,

Okay, I ran a couple of tests with Nearby Explorer, in a vehicle:

Note 1:
I have enough vision to be able to see the physical intersections as I
approach them, in a vehicle, and as they pass.

Note 2:
The average speed of the car I was riding in did not exceed 50 miles per
hour and averaged between 35 to 45 miles per hour.

Note 3:
I ran test with (1) only the approach set to be automatically announced and
(2) only the street name set to be automatically announced.  In either case,
the results were the same.

Note 4:
There was absolutely no cloud cover in my location today.  It was a
beautifully sunny day.  Also, as I live near the beach, there are/were no
structures blocking my view of the sky.

Note 5:
While I ran Nearby Explorer on my 128GB iPhone 6 Plus, I simultaneously ran
Seeing Eye GPS XT on my 64GB iPhone 5 S, for real-time comparison.  

Note 6:
I ran both apps with the screen turned off.

Note 7:
Seeing Eye consistently reported greater GPS accuracy than did Nearby
Explorer.

Note 8:
Please be aware that I am only concerned with and, therefore tested for
intersection announcements while free walking.  This is to say, rarely, if
ever, do I use any GPS routing so cannot comment as to the accuracy of that
feature.  To me, the most valuable aspect of a GPS solution is the ability
to simply launch the 

Re: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing Eye GPS

[Ed Worrell]

Hey Mark,

I can confirm that I have the same results in my testing of the apps side by 
side. The NerBy app has a definite issue with telling accurate distances. The 
Seeing Eye GPS is always on target.

Thanks,

Ed
> On Aug 24, 2016, at 12:05 PM, Kramlinger, Keith G., M.D. 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Chip,
> 
> Given the drag on battery when using GPS, how much do you think having maps 
> onboard, as compared to using GoogleMaps or AppleMaps, actually saves?
> 
> Thanks, Keith
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
> Chip Orange
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:56 PM
> To: viphone@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
> Seeing Eye GPS
> 
> Thank you Mark for your analysis and testing results.
> 
> I wanted to offer one correction however: GPS apps in no way have to take 
> into consideration their distance from the satellites.  The underlying GPS 
> hardware obviously does, but it simply reports the lat and lon to the app, 
> which then does what it does, but has no interaction with distance from any 
> satellites (I have written a GPS app).  It is also offered an opinion from 
> the GPS hardware as to the likelyhood of the reported position being in 
> error, and an estimate of how large the error might be, but no distance is 
> involved except that the app can then take the estimated error probability, 
> and report it to the user as an error distance (but this is something known 
> to be rather inaccurate).
> 
> All GPS apps designed to be used while in motion need to take into 
> consideration the current speed and direction of the motion, along with their 
> own estimation of how long it will take them to calculate and report a map 
> position (as a car moving at speed can cover quite a distance since the last 
> reported position from the GPS hardware), and it sounds very much like Nearby 
> GPS is not doing this.  Given that use of GPS hardware can drain the battery 
> significantly, most apps also don't constantly query the hardware as to the 
> current position, so more than ever the app needs to compensate for time 
> passed since the last report (along with direction and speed).
> 
> I recall this was also a reported problem for Seeing Eye GPS many years ago 
> (long before it was available on smart phones), and so it looks like it's a 
> problem they've conquored, and so likely will be one APH can conquor.
> 
> Thanks again for the very useful testing,
> 
> Chip
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
> M. Taylor
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 7:21 PM
> To: viphone@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
> Seeing Eye GPS
> 
> Hello All, 
> 
> I sent the following to A.P.H. in response to a test request:
> 
> Mark
> 
> Post:
> Hello Rob, et al,
> 
> Okay, I ran a couple of tests with Nearby Explorer, in a vehicle:
> 
> Note 1:
> I have enough vision to be able to see the physical intersections as I
> approach them, in a vehicle, and as they pass.
> 
> Note 2:
> The average speed of the car I was riding in did not exceed 50 miles per
> hour and averaged between 35 to 45 miles per hour.
> 
> Note 3:
> I ran test with (1) only the approach set to be automatically announced and
> (2) only the street name set to be automatically announced.  In either case,
> the results were the same.
> 
> Note 4:
> There was absolutely no cloud cover in my location today.  It was a
> beautifully sunny day.  Also, as I live near the beach, there are/were no
> structures blocking my view of the sky.
> 
> Note 5:
> While I ran Nearby Explorer on my 128GB iPhone 6 Plus, I simultaneously ran
> Seeing Eye GPS XT on my 64GB iPhone 5 S, for real-time comparison.  
> 
> Note 6:
> I ran both apps with the screen turned off.
> 
> Note 7:
> Seeing Eye consistently reported greater GPS accuracy than did Nearby
> Explorer.
> 
> Note 8:
> Please be aware that I am only concerned with and, therefore tested for
> intersection announcements while free walking.  This is to say, rarely, if
> ever, do I use any GPS routing so cannot comment as to the accuracy of that
> feature.  To me, the most valuable aspect of a GPS solution is the ability
> to simply launch the app and have cross-street/intersections automatically
> be announced.  
> 
> Note 9:
> Okay, having said all of this, even on an older device, Seeing Eye GPS was
> remarkably more accurate than Nearby Explorer in the area of free-walking,
> auto-intersection announcements.
> 
> Comments:
> Now that I've got all of that out of the way, I can tell you that Nearby
> Explorer appears to be off by as little as 50 yards to as much as 200 yards
> at virtually every intersection.  This is to say, as we approached the
> cross-walk, slowing down in the approach for a red light, Seeing Eye would
> 

RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing Eye GPS

[Kramlinger, Keith G., M.D.]

Hi Chip,

Given the drag on battery when using GPS, how much do you think having maps 
onboard, as compared to using GoogleMaps or AppleMaps, actually saves?

Thanks, Keith

-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
Chip Orange
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:56 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to 
Seeing Eye GPS

Thank you Mark for your analysis and testing results.

I wanted to offer one correction however: GPS apps in no way have to take into 
consideration their distance from the satellites.  The underlying GPS hardware 
obviously does, but it simply reports the lat and lon to the app, which then 
does what it does, but has no interaction with distance from any satellites (I 
have written a GPS app).  It is also offered an opinion from the GPS hardware 
as to the likelyhood of the reported position being in error, and an estimate 
of how large the error might be, but no distance is involved except that the 
app can then take the estimated error probability, and report it to the user as 
an error distance (but this is something known to be rather inaccurate).

All GPS apps designed to be used while in motion need to take into 
consideration the current speed and direction of the motion, along with their 
own estimation of how long it will take them to calculate and report a map 
position (as a car moving at speed can cover quite a distance since the last 
reported position from the GPS hardware), and it sounds very much like Nearby 
GPS is not doing this.  Given that use of GPS hardware can drain the battery 
significantly, most apps also don't constantly query the hardware as to the 
current position, so more than ever the app needs to compensate for time passed 
since the last report (along with direction and speed).

I recall this was also a reported problem for Seeing Eye GPS many years ago 
(long before it was available on smart phones), and so it looks like it's a 
problem they've conquored, and so likely will be one APH can conquor.

Thanks again for the very useful testing,

Chip


-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
M. Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 7:21 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing 
Eye GPS

Hello All, 

I sent the following to A.P.H. in response to a test request:

Mark

Post:
Hello Rob, et al,

Okay, I ran a couple of tests with Nearby Explorer, in a vehicle:

Note 1:
I have enough vision to be able to see the physical intersections as I
approach them, in a vehicle, and as they pass.

Note 2:
The average speed of the car I was riding in did not exceed 50 miles per
hour and averaged between 35 to 45 miles per hour.

Note 3:
I ran test with (1) only the approach set to be automatically announced and
(2) only the street name set to be automatically announced.  In either case,
the results were the same.

Note 4:
There was absolutely no cloud cover in my location today.  It was a
beautifully sunny day.  Also, as I live near the beach, there are/were no
structures blocking my view of the sky.

Note 5:
While I ran Nearby Explorer on my 128GB iPhone 6 Plus, I simultaneously ran
Seeing Eye GPS XT on my 64GB iPhone 5 S, for real-time comparison.  

Note 6:
I ran both apps with the screen turned off.

Note 7:
Seeing Eye consistently reported greater GPS accuracy than did Nearby
Explorer.

Note 8:
Please be aware that I am only concerned with and, therefore tested for
intersection announcements while free walking.  This is to say, rarely, if
ever, do I use any GPS routing so cannot comment as to the accuracy of that
feature.  To me, the most valuable aspect of a GPS solution is the ability
to simply launch the app and have cross-street/intersections automatically
be announced.  

Note 9:
Okay, having said all of this, even on an older device, Seeing Eye GPS was
remarkably more accurate than Nearby Explorer in the area of free-walking,
auto-intersection announcements.

Comments:
Now that I've got all of that out of the way, I can tell you that Nearby
Explorer appears to be off by as little as 50 yards to as much as 200 yards
at virtually every intersection.  This is to say, as we approached the
cross-walk, slowing down in the approach for a red light, Seeing Eye would
perfectly announce the intersection.  Nearby Explorer, however, if it
announced the cross street at all, would consistently report it as being as
little as 50 yards ahead; more often than not, however, it would report the
intersection as being 250 or so yards ahead.  I was really surprised to see
intersections being announced only after we had passed through them by as
little as 100 feet or more.

At speed, Nearby Explorer consistently failed to announce intersections,
altogether.  

It almost seemed as though the app was/is not properly 

RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing Eye GPS

[Chip Orange]

Thank you Mark for your analysis and testing results.

I wanted to offer one correction however: GPS apps in no way have to take into 
consideration their distance from the satellites.  The underlying GPS hardware 
obviously does, but it simply reports the lat and lon to the app, which then 
does what it does, but has no interaction with distance from any satellites (I 
have written a GPS app).  It is also offered an opinion from the GPS hardware 
as to the likelyhood of the reported position being in error, and an estimate 
of how large the error might be, but no distance is involved except that the 
app can then take the estimated error probability, and report it to the user as 
an error distance (but this is something known to be rather inaccurate).

All GPS apps designed to be used while in motion need to take into 
consideration the current speed and direction of the motion, along with their 
own estimation of how long it will take them to calculate and report a map 
position (as a car moving at speed can cover quite a distance since the last 
reported position from the GPS hardware), and it sounds very much like Nearby 
GPS is not doing this.  Given that use of GPS hardware can drain the battery 
significantly, most apps also don't constantly query the hardware as to the 
current position, so more than ever the app needs to compensate for time passed 
since the last report (along with direction and speed).

I recall this was also a reported problem for Seeing Eye GPS many years ago 
(long before it was available on smart phones), and so it looks like it's a 
problem they've conquored, and so likely will be one APH can conquor.

Thanks again for the very useful testing,

Chip


-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
M. Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 7:21 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing 
Eye GPS

Hello All, 

I sent the following to A.P.H. in response to a test request:

Mark

Post:
Hello Rob, et al,

Okay, I ran a couple of tests with Nearby Explorer, in a vehicle:

Note 1:
I have enough vision to be able to see the physical intersections as I
approach them, in a vehicle, and as they pass.

Note 2:
The average speed of the car I was riding in did not exceed 50 miles per
hour and averaged between 35 to 45 miles per hour.

Note 3:
I ran test with (1) only the approach set to be automatically announced and
(2) only the street name set to be automatically announced.  In either case,
the results were the same.

Note 4:
There was absolutely no cloud cover in my location today.  It was a
beautifully sunny day.  Also, as I live near the beach, there are/were no
structures blocking my view of the sky.

Note 5:
While I ran Nearby Explorer on my 128GB iPhone 6 Plus, I simultaneously ran
Seeing Eye GPS XT on my 64GB iPhone 5 S, for real-time comparison.  

Note 6:
I ran both apps with the screen turned off.

Note 7:
Seeing Eye consistently reported greater GPS accuracy than did Nearby
Explorer.

Note 8:
Please be aware that I am only concerned with and, therefore tested for
intersection announcements while free walking.  This is to say, rarely, if
ever, do I use any GPS routing so cannot comment as to the accuracy of that
feature.  To me, the most valuable aspect of a GPS solution is the ability
to simply launch the app and have cross-street/intersections automatically
be announced.  

Note 9:
Okay, having said all of this, even on an older device, Seeing Eye GPS was
remarkably more accurate than Nearby Explorer in the area of free-walking,
auto-intersection announcements.

Comments:
Now that I've got all of that out of the way, I can tell you that Nearby
Explorer appears to be off by as little as 50 yards to as much as 200 yards
at virtually every intersection.  This is to say, as we approached the
cross-walk, slowing down in the approach for a red light, Seeing Eye would
perfectly announce the intersection.  Nearby Explorer, however, if it
announced the cross street at all, would consistently report it as being as
little as 50 yards ahead; more often than not, however, it would report the
intersection as being 250 or so yards ahead.  I was really surprised to see
intersections being announced only after we had passed through them by as
little as 100 feet or more.

At speed, Nearby Explorer consistently failed to announce intersections,
altogether.  

It almost seemed as though the app was/is not properly calibrated for being
used at sea level.  This is the only thing I can fathom as to why its
performance was so poor.  I'm not certain about the algorithm but I do know
that GPS apps must take into account their distance from the satellite in
order to compensate for the time delay, and subsequent calculations. 

It may also be a problem that its radius is simply set too far ahead.
Seeing Eye and, if memory serves, Mobile Geo would allow for distances as
close 

RE: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing Eye GPS

[Rick Alfaro]

Hi Mark. Those are some very interesting observations and so completely 
different from what I heard on Mike's demo. I'd be really interested in knowing 
why the difference is so huge. I haven't purchased the app but if I had and 
experienced such terrible accuracy, I'd be asking for a refund. Hopefully, your 
notes will help them in finding the issues shown in your situation. Thanks for 
sharing the notes.



Best regards,

Rick Alfaro


-Original Message-
From: viphone@googlegroups.com [mailto:viphone@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
M. Taylor
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 7:21 PM
To: viphone@googlegroups.com
Subject: Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing 
Eye GPS

Hello All, 

I sent the following to A.P.H. in response to a test request:

Mark

Post:
Hello Rob, et al,

Okay, I ran a couple of tests with Nearby Explorer, in a vehicle:

Note 1:
I have enough vision to be able to see the physical intersections as I
approach them, in a vehicle, and as they pass.

Note 2:
The average speed of the car I was riding in did not exceed 50 miles per
hour and averaged between 35 to 45 miles per hour.

Note 3:
I ran test with (1) only the approach set to be automatically announced and
(2) only the street name set to be automatically announced.  In either case,
the results were the same.

Note 4:
There was absolutely no cloud cover in my location today.  It was a
beautifully sunny day.  Also, as I live near the beach, there are/were no
structures blocking my view of the sky.

Note 5:
While I ran Nearby Explorer on my 128GB iPhone 6 Plus, I simultaneously ran
Seeing Eye GPS XT on my 64GB iPhone 5 S, for real-time comparison.  

Note 6:
I ran both apps with the screen turned off.

Note 7:
Seeing Eye consistently reported greater GPS accuracy than did Nearby
Explorer.

Note 8:
Please be aware that I am only concerned with and, therefore tested for
intersection announcements while free walking.  This is to say, rarely, if
ever, do I use any GPS routing so cannot comment as to the accuracy of that
feature.  To me, the most valuable aspect of a GPS solution is the ability
to simply launch the app and have cross-street/intersections automatically
be announced.  

Note 9:
Okay, having said all of this, even on an older device, Seeing Eye GPS was
remarkably more accurate than Nearby Explorer in the area of free-walking,
auto-intersection announcements.

Comments:
Now that I've got all of that out of the way, I can tell you that Nearby
Explorer appears to be off by as little as 50 yards to as much as 200 yards
at virtually every intersection.  This is to say, as we approached the
cross-walk, slowing down in the approach for a red light, Seeing Eye would
perfectly announce the intersection.  Nearby Explorer, however, if it
announced the cross street at all, would consistently report it as being as
little as 50 yards ahead; more often than not, however, it would report the
intersection as being 250 or so yards ahead.  I was really surprised to see
intersections being announced only after we had passed through them by as
little as 100 feet or more.

At speed, Nearby Explorer consistently failed to announce intersections,
altogether.  

It almost seemed as though the app was/is not properly calibrated for being
used at sea level.  This is the only thing I can fathom as to why its
performance was so poor.  I'm not certain about the algorithm but I do know
that GPS apps must take into account their distance from the satellite in
order to compensate for the time delay, and subsequent calculations. 

It may also be a problem that its radius is simply set too far ahead.
Seeing Eye and, if memory serves, Mobile Geo would allow for distances as
close as 15 feet and approach auto-announcements as close as 50 feet.  

I really do find that the extreme distances that Nearby Explorer offer are
of virtually no used to me as either a pedestrian or rider.  To say that
something is 300 yards ahead, has no real meaning to me but to say that
something is 20 feet ahead is something I can definitely relate to.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Mark

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the V iPhone list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your V iPhone list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn - you 
can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"VIPhone" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/viphone.
For 

Results of Testing Nearby Explorer in a Vehicle, as Compared to Seeing Eye GPS

[M. Taylor]

Hello All, 

I sent the following to A.P.H. in response to a test request:

Mark

Post:
Hello Rob, et al,

Okay, I ran a couple of tests with Nearby Explorer, in a vehicle:

Note 1:
I have enough vision to be able to see the physical intersections as I
approach them, in a vehicle, and as they pass.

Note 2:
The average speed of the car I was riding in did not exceed 50 miles per
hour and averaged between 35 to 45 miles per hour.

Note 3:
I ran test with (1) only the approach set to be automatically announced and
(2) only the street name set to be automatically announced.  In either case,
the results were the same.

Note 4:
There was absolutely no cloud cover in my location today.  It was a
beautifully sunny day.  Also, as I live near the beach, there are/were no
structures blocking my view of the sky.

Note 5:
While I ran Nearby Explorer on my 128GB iPhone 6 Plus, I simultaneously ran
Seeing Eye GPS XT on my 64GB iPhone 5 S, for real-time comparison.  

Note 6:
I ran both apps with the screen turned off.

Note 7:
Seeing Eye consistently reported greater GPS accuracy than did Nearby
Explorer.

Note 8:
Please be aware that I am only concerned with and, therefore tested for
intersection announcements while free walking.  This is to say, rarely, if
ever, do I use any GPS routing so cannot comment as to the accuracy of that
feature.  To me, the most valuable aspect of a GPS solution is the ability
to simply launch the app and have cross-street/intersections automatically
be announced.  

Note 9:
Okay, having said all of this, even on an older device, Seeing Eye GPS was
remarkably more accurate than Nearby Explorer in the area of free-walking,
auto-intersection announcements.

Comments:
Now that I've got all of that out of the way, I can tell you that Nearby
Explorer appears to be off by as little as 50 yards to as much as 200 yards
at virtually every intersection.  This is to say, as we approached the
cross-walk, slowing down in the approach for a red light, Seeing Eye would
perfectly announce the intersection.  Nearby Explorer, however, if it
announced the cross street at all, would consistently report it as being as
little as 50 yards ahead; more often than not, however, it would report the
intersection as being 250 or so yards ahead.  I was really surprised to see
intersections being announced only after we had passed through them by as
little as 100 feet or more.

At speed, Nearby Explorer consistently failed to announce intersections,
altogether.  

It almost seemed as though the app was/is not properly calibrated for being
used at sea level.  This is the only thing I can fathom as to why its
performance was so poor.  I'm not certain about the algorithm but I do know
that GPS apps must take into account their distance from the satellite in
order to compensate for the time delay, and subsequent calculations. 

It may also be a problem that its radius is simply set too far ahead.
Seeing Eye and, if memory serves, Mobile Geo would allow for distances as
close as 15 feet and approach auto-announcements as close as 50 feet.  

I really do find that the extreme distances that Nearby Explorer offer are
of virtually no used to me as either a pedestrian or rider.  To say that
something is 300 yards ahead, has no real meaning to me but to say that
something is 20 feet ahead is something I can definitely relate to.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Mark

-- 
The following information is important for all members of the V iPhone list.

If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you 
feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or 
moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself.

Your V iPhone list moderator is Mark Taylor and your owner is Cara Quinn - you 
can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com

The archives for this list can be searched at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"VIPhone" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/viphone.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.