|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 25, 2014 15:44:52 GMT
I figure that we should start with something "small" like a college campus and go from there because it'd test the validity of each method (map, GPS, asking around) over a variety of scenarios. I figure that a decent-sized college campus should be large enough to where a person - especially someone who was new - legitimately would need assistance navigating around the first few times they were on site, but wouldn't be so large that the team would be swamped. In this sense, the team could play the role of a new college student or a relative come to visit a student. The second test would represent, say, the daily commute of a person who lived off-campus. With your average college town, it's only reasonable to think that a person who hails from that town would prefer to stay with family or friends so as to save on the cost of room & board; the trade-off, however, is that they have to get from A to B. The third test would represent, perhaps, someone going to visit a relative who lives at a somewhat distant college or a college student going to stay with "nearby" family during a break. This isn't a trip that a person might make very often (say, once a month at most) and so it's reasonable that they wouldn't originally have the route memorized. I was only referring to using the car compass when navigating a college campus (presumably on foot) my thought for an alternative would be flying into an airport in an unfamiliar city, renting a car and going to a hotel. |
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Jun 25, 2014 16:46:10 GMT
The key to testing these would be deciding on the dividing point between successfully navigating between A and B and simply visiting every possible location until you found the one you wanted, which is less navigation than a process of elimination.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 25, 2014 18:28:29 GMT
OK, TV production thinking at work here.
Cost issues mean that flying to another city in order to test this is probably not practical - remember that we are not just talking about flying the cast but the film crew and their equipment. Unless they have another reason to go to a major city (for example getting to use/visit a NASA facility to conduct testing on something else), it would be simpler and a lot cheaper to drive to the starting location.
While this would limit the area in which they could test this, given the size of the US this would not be a major issue. In fact while they naturally wouldn't want to try and do any testing in an area the cast might know, there is no reason that they couldn't start in SF and pick some small town in Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon or Idaho - all of which would be within a day or two's drive of SF. This would have the added advantage of allowing them to use their own vehicles if they wanted to rather than having to rent any. Translation; They only need to cover fuel costs.
From there they could move onto a university campus in that area to test ways to navigate on foot. (Maybe 'paying' for using the campus by giving a speech to the students while they are there - which would also give them a valid excuse to be walking around asking where a particular room is or looking at a map without automatically revealing that they are in fact testing something for the show.)
After the university visit they could be tasked with driving back to SF, but going through another town or city (therefore returning by a different route to the one they left on) on the way back to the shop. Naturally they would most likely be able to find their way back without aids once they hit the outskirts of SF. But assuming that they have more or less equal knowledge of the area this wouldn't be an advantage for any of the techniques being tested.
Avoiding a 'follow my leader' situation (whoever is tasked with finding their way by asking for directions is going to be tempted to stick behind whoever is using GPS) each of the cast just starts at a different time - maybe an hours gap between cars.
Safety in this case would be simple, if they are filming on the road they would have a camera crew with them. Either in the car or following behind them. Regardless the crew would have access to both a map and a GPS system just in case someone gets badly lost.
A rough guess would be that the entire sequence could be filmed in four or five days, and cost them a couple of hotel rooms and the gas used. This would make it a fast and cheap idea for them to consider looking at doing; I have no idea how much they spend per episode, but clearly a couple of hotel rooms and gas is going to cost less than a lot of episodes they film. Even with five days of filming that is less than their typical episode, which takes 7-10 days.
With the potential to be amusing, should someone suddenly discover that the GPS has just directed them through the middle of a lake or that they have just driven a hundred miles in the wrong direction. And that the answer might well not be as clear cut as it seems - GPS might well prove to have no significant advantage over a map, and asking for directions might well prove much more effective than it sounds.
Well, I can see this being something that they might well consider looking at.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 25, 2014 19:08:41 GMT
To be honest, we could even potentially have the team try to retrace their own steps back to SF.
*Traffic would vary by day and time of day, such that mile markers and other road signage might not be immediately visible and/or they might not be able to make the same turns that they made.
*Individual roads can be such that there are conditions which can make the approach difficult. For example, consider the intersection between FM 2657 and State Highway 281 down here in Texas. The last time I was down that way (a decade ago), the intersection was unlighted and there was very little signage on 281 to indicate the intersection. Given the curvature and slope of both roads, if the weeds were tall enough you then literally could not see 2657 if you were going westbound on 281 until you were just a few hundred feet away; if your reaction time was too slow, then you'd overshoot the intersection.
*Road construction, accidents, and other such matters can cause roads to be closed, forcing traffic elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 25, 2014 23:45:42 GMT
Keep in mind that San Francisco, CA to Portland, OR is about 635 miles. that makes for kind of a long day. - I'm guessing that for previous tests done in the Portland area, they shipped the equipment and flew the cast and crew. (but did the whole thing in one trip rather than making multiple trips)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 26, 2014 11:30:11 GMT
At the end of the day determining if they drive from SF to another location, or fly out to another city and start from there would come down to cost and available time for filming.
In a practical sense they just need a destination none of the cast knows, and ideally doesn't require driving along routes the cast would know well, if at all, for too long*. There should be plenty of locations within a day or so's travel of SF using roads, and as far as production goes this would simplify things considerably in regards planning and costs. Flying out to a location would cost them at least a days filming, given the amount of equipment they travel with, the time needed for it to be checked at airport security and the time needed to unload it at the other end. They'd also have to pay for airfare, accommodation, several hire cars and at least one truck for their equipment. Where as moving by road just costs them accommodation** and fuel.
Given the nature of the idea I can see them looking at the lower cost option, which would/should also be much faster to test and film.
This is the KISS principle for TV productions - keep it as simple and cheap as you can.
(*This would probably mean picking a location somewhere to the north of SF, since LA is to the south and I'd guess the cast are fairly familiar with the major routes in that direction - or at least more familiar than they would be with the routes north.)
(**Unless they can borrow a couple of caravans, in which case they could be towing them and sleep in them.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 26, 2014 13:48:10 GMT
domestic air freight does not require the security, though as I said, they would simply have their equipment trucked up to meet them.
really, does spending 4 hours being processed through an airport take that much longer than driving for 14 hours?
city to city navigation does not really fit the bill for the episode, since I will give you directions for driving from Portland to Los Angeles:
follow signs to I-5.
take I-5 south.
continue for 1000 miles.
they can probably find a moderately sized town in the vicinity of San Francisco that they are not familiar with, or they could simply film in a city where they are scheduled to do a speaking engagement. its not that big a deal to ship their camera gear to meet them. my parents used to have Geraniums air shipped to them, for crying out loud. if there's one form of transit, the US does do well, its fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 26, 2014 14:47:53 GMT
They have detailed directly and indirectly what they have to go through to transport their equipment by air.
Because their equipment is so expensive, and loosing it even for a few hours would wreck their filming schedule, it is transported on the same aircraft the cast and crew are on. This means that it has to be checked by security prior to being loaded, we are after all talking about electrical items being carried in large boxes. The amount of equipment is also a LOT greater than you'd think. Even a short trip requires so much equipment you need a truck to transport it - we are not talking about a small camcorder but dedicated TV quality cameras (several of them), sound recording equipment, equipment for lighting, basic editing equipment (so they can look at the footage they film to see if they need to reshoot anything) to name those items I can think of off the top of my head. All of these boxes have to be opened and examined by security prior to being loaded.
At the other end once they have passed through security they have to recover all these items, and then check to make sure they are not missing anything and that everything had survived the trip undamaged.
Then they have to load all of this stuff into a truck, and do so in a way that allows them to find everything quickly and easily.
As I said, ultimately deciding on where to test this and the method of transportation is going to be a production issue. But I can see that from that point of view, and given the nature of this particular myth, trying to avoid all this hassle by sticking with road transportation is going to be more attractive. No need to mess around loading and unloading all the gear, since it is already going to be more or less loaded into one of their trucks and that can simply drive along behind one of the test cars.
The point about city-to-city navigation is a fair one. My thinking was simply that we want to pick a route that requires the cast to depend on their navigation technique as much a possible. I'm guessing that most of them would be quite familiar with some of the road systems around LA, which could mess up results obtained by the map and 'seat of the pants' navigation as they may well be aware that (for example) a particular route is likely to be busy at a given time of day and is therefore best avoided - GPS systems are more reactive in regards to heavy traffic, for those systems that possess such a feature, and as such may not warn the driver about heavy traffic until it is too late to do anything about it. A driver with local knowledge however may be able to predict the traffic in advance and miss it entirely.
In this regards picking a destination North of SF makes more sense, as the cast are less likely to know the roads and conditions on those roads beyond a certain distance. (Of the cast, I'd guess that only Kari has never really needed to travel into or near LA for work. Since she started at M5 at the same time MB started. Everyone else would have needed to head south towards LA at some point as part of their special effects jobs.)
Sure, you'd start off by giving them at least a basic idea as to where they are heading (especially who ever is driving 'blind'). And this would probably include at least telling them what route to start by, and/or a general idea as to where it is located (for example 'South-West Washington State, near the boarder with Oregon. Or 'near Eugene'* Oregon)
(*Near of course being relative)
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 26, 2014 15:06:27 GMT
Mapquest is saying that it's less than 600 miles to Vegas, with the total trip each way being about 9 - 10 hours depending upon traffic. It's identifying three highways that people can take (I-580E to I-5S, CA-99S, and US-101S to I-5S), and so the team would have a series of choices to make. Vegas is also home to University of Nevada Las Vegas, which gives them a campus that they could lecture at and so also conduct navigation exercises. (Wikipedia says that UNLV has the only dental school in the state; the team could easily pretend to be seeking the school out to meet with an expert, and as the only one in the state one would think that it'd be fairly prominent.) And of course since it's a big city with a lot of traffic, they could easily conduct place-to-place exercises as well. How's that sound? |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 26, 2014 15:25:20 GMT
Vegas may be too well known for a viable test of navigation techniques (as in driving too), I think both Grant and Tory go or have been there fairly often. It might, however, be ideal as the starting location as I'd guess there are a lot of smaller towns in the general area that are a few hours drive away, and which tourists don't know of or visit. Much would depend on the nature of the regions road network - we'd really want to find somewhere that isn't all that easy to find - meaning that it is more than just driving down a freeway until you hit a sign telling you where you need to turn off at the next exit.
However for testing navigating on foot it might be ideal, as it might be for trying smaller tests using a car inside a city. That it is a day away from SF means that they could save on costs by bringing their equipment in on trucks and using their own vehicles for testing rather than flying out. It might also, in this case, be practical to have the crew drive out the day before and fly the cast in early the next day to start filming. They might be able to do something similar with other cities a days drive from SF, although I'd guess that there would be more flights to Vegas than elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 26, 2014 16:42:32 GMT
They have detailed directly and indirectly what they have to go through to transport their equipment by air. Because their equipment is so expensive, and loosing it even for a few hours would wreck their filming schedule, it is transported on the same aircraft the cast and crew are on. This means that it has to be checked by security prior to being loaded, we are after all talking about electrical items being carried in large boxes. The amount of equipment is also a LOT greater than you'd think. Even a short trip requires so much equipment you need a truck to transport it - we are not talking about a small camcorder but dedicated TV quality cameras (several of them), sound recording equipment, equipment for lighting, basic editing equipment (so they can look at the footage they film to see if they need to reshoot anything) to name those items I can think of off the top of my head. All of these boxes have to be opened and examined by security prior to being loaded. At the other end once they have passed through security they have to recover all these items, and then check to make sure they are not missing anything and that everything had survived the trip undamaged. Then they have to load all of this stuff into a truck, and do so in a way that allows them to find everything quickly and easily. As I said, ultimately deciding on where to test this and the method of transportation is going to be a production issue. But I can see that from that point of view, and given the nature of this particular myth, trying to avoid all this hassle by sticking with road transportation is going to be more attractive. No need to mess around loading and unloading all the gear, since it is already going to be more or less loaded into one of their trucks and that can simply drive along behind one of the test cars. The point about city-to-city navigation is a fair one. My thinking was simply that we want to pick a route that requires the cast to depend on their navigation technique as much a possible. I'm guessing that most of them would be quite familiar with some of the road systems around LA, which could mess up results obtained by the map and 'seat of the pants' navigation as they may well be aware that (for example) a particular route is likely to be busy at a given time of day and is therefore best avoided - GPS systems are more reactive in regards to heavy traffic, for those systems that possess such a feature, and as such may not warn the driver about heavy traffic until it is too late to do anything about it. A driver with local knowledge however may be able to predict the traffic in advance and miss it entirely. In this regards picking a destination North of SF makes more sense, as the cast are less likely to know the roads and conditions on those roads beyond a certain distance. (Of the cast, I'd guess that only Kari has never really needed to travel into or near LA for work. Since she started at M5 at the same time MB started. Everyone else would have needed to head south towards LA at some point as part of their special effects jobs.) Sure, you'd start off by giving them at least a basic idea as to where they are heading (especially who ever is driving 'blind'). And this would probably include at least telling them what route to start by, and/or a general idea as to where it is located (for example 'South-West Washington State, near the boarder with Oregon. Or 'near Eugene'* Oregon) (*Near of course being relative) I had apparently missed those segments. I still think you are overestimating the cost effective distance to travel by car - but not having written checks for that sort of business, I could be wrong. I would be inclined to suggest a smaller state university - big enough that they could afford a reduced appearance fee, but small enough that they haven't already been there. and again, I think the best test would be to make a transit terminal the starting point, to simulate arriving by plane or train, as you might expect a traveler to do. - it would also eliminate trying to squeeze a 12 hour plus road trip into an hour program. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jun 26, 2014 18:58:34 GMT
I should have been more specific. The information comes from tweets and comments made by some of the cast at various times, as well as having at least a passing knowledge as to what kind of equipment is needed and used for filming outside a studio. None of this has been shown on air as far as I know.
Images and comments on twitter, I *think* from Grant, when they were on their way to do some filming and traveling by air showed the amount of equipment they carry. We are talking about a LOT of stuff here, and its not light - off the top of my head a TV quality camera weighs something in the region of 30 lbs before you start adding batteries and film...and this doesn't have sound recording equipment which is carried by someone else and (again off the top of my head) weighs something like 15 lbs. Several radio mics that the cast can clip to their belts, roughly a pound or so in weight. Then you have editing equipment, by which I mean equipment that allows the director to view footage - since I don't think TV cameras usually have the ability to play back footage as camcorders do. (Some aspects of film equipment have changed somewhat since I last had a chance to check. So it is possible that newer cameras can replay footage, but this isn't always good for getting an idea as to how something would look on a TV screen).
The problem is not just the amount of the equipment, but the weight. Airlines charge based on weight as much if not more than they do volume. So you are talking about a lot of heavy equipment they are going to charge a LOT of money to transport.
The security checks were confirmed by the picture of the equipment they were taking, in which it was noted that the picture was being taken because they'd had to drag all of it into a room so all the cases could be opened up and examined prior to being loaded on the aircraft.
The checking, double checking and wanting to keep the equipment on the same plane as the film crew is both based on that tweet, and simple logic. A basic second hand 16mm film quality camera will set you back several thousand pounds sterling. The cameras on MB are a heck of a lot more expensive than that. Exactly how expensive such cameras are I can't say, since the people who sell such equipment don't advertise the price - presumably on the logic that if you have to ask clearly you can't afford one. But it would be reasonable to assume that even the cheapest camera MB is currently using cost something like $10,000, and could easily be in the $100-500,000 range since they started filming in HD.
Not the sort of equipment you want out of your sight for any length of time. As far as damage or loses are concerned it is best to discover this as soon as possible, so you have a chance to find a replacement. Rather than discovering that the camera batteries are missing or the lens is cracked five minutes before you were meant to start filming.
The logistics and costs of moving TV productions by air are therefore a major issue, and (like any other show) MB will have to balance the costs of going by air against the time it might save. If you review the locations MB have shot in, you'll notice that they tend to either be within or close enough to SF that they can just drive out there (the desert is a prime example) or locations that contain something they can't find closer to home - a wind machine in Florida, snow and sub-zero temperatures in Alaska....
MB will have a budget that is set for a year, then divided by the number of episodes they intend to make in that time. Like any good show they will want to avoid going over budget on one show, because this means they can't spend as much on another. Likewise they will want to save as much money as they can on episodes where possible, because that means they have a little extra to spend on something else.
The nature of this particular idea makes me think that this would be viewed as something that could or should be quick, simple and cheap to make. Which is always the sort of thing shows (not just MB) like to have on their books just in case. While I'm actually liking this idea of testing navigation techniques, I really don't think that it warrants spending a lot of money on.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 27, 2014 3:00:56 GMT
I should have been more specific. The information comes from tweets and comments made by some of the cast at various times, as well as having at least a passing knowledge as to what kind of equipment is needed and used for filming outside a studio. None of this has been shown on air as far as I know. Images and comments on twitter, I *think* from Grant, when they were on their way to do some filming and traveling by air showed the amount of equipment they carry. We are talking about a LOT of stuff here, and its not light - off the top of my head a TV quality camera weighs something in the region of 30 lbs before you start adding batteries and film...and this doesn't have sound recording equipment which is carried by someone else and (again off the top of my head) weighs something like 15 lbs. Several radio mics that the cast can clip to their belts, roughly a pound or so in weight. Then you have editing equipment, by which I mean equipment that allows the director to view footage - since I don't think TV cameras usually have the ability to play back footage as camcorders do. (Some aspects of film equipment have changed somewhat since I last had a chance to check. So it is possible that newer cameras can replay footage, but this isn't always good for getting an idea as to how something would look on a TV screen). The problem is not just the amount of the equipment, but the weight. Airlines charge based on weight as much if not more than they do volume. So you are talking about a lot of heavy equipment they are going to charge a LOT of money to transport. The security checks were confirmed by the picture of the equipment they were taking, in which it was noted that the picture was being taken because they'd had to drag all of it into a room so all the cases could be opened up and examined prior to being loaded on the aircraft. The checking, double checking and wanting to keep the equipment on the same plane as the film crew is both based on that tweet, and simple logic. A basic second hand 16mm film quality camera will set you back several thousand pounds sterling. The cameras on MB are a heck of a lot more expensive than that. Exactly how expensive such cameras are I can't say, since the people who sell such equipment don't advertise the price - presumably on the logic that if you have to ask clearly you can't afford one. But it would be reasonable to assume that even the cheapest camera MB is currently using cost something like $10,000, and could easily be in the $100-500,000 range since they started filming in HD. Not the sort of equipment you want out of your sight for any length of time. As far as damage or loses are concerned it is best to discover this as soon as possible, so you have a chance to find a replacement. Rather than discovering that the camera batteries are missing or the lens is cracked five minutes before you were meant to start filming. The logistics and costs of moving TV productions by air are therefore a major issue, and (like any other show) MB will have to balance the costs of going by air against the time it might save. If you review the locations MB have shot in, you'll notice that they tend to either be within or close enough to SF that they can just drive out there (the desert is a prime example) or locations that contain something they can't find closer to home - a wind machine in Florida, snow and sub-zero temperatures in Alaska.... MB will have a budget that is set for a year, then divided by the number of episodes they intend to make in that time. Like any good show they will want to avoid going over budget on one show, because this means they can't spend as much on another. Likewise they will want to save as much money as they can on episodes where possible, because that means they have a little extra to spend on something else. The nature of this particular idea makes me think that this would be viewed as something that could or should be quick, simple and cheap to make. Which is always the sort of thing shows (not just MB) like to have on their books just in case. While I'm actually liking this idea of testing navigation techniques, I really don't think that it warrants spending a lot of money on. I agree with that. which is why doubling it up with a college visit or other speaking engagement seems like a good idea to me. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 27, 2014 7:57:29 GMT
Yes it does.
Basic AvSec, aviation security,
Transport rules for any international airport, freight is either known, Flown or unknown.
Known is "Safe", as in the sender is licensed to produce the paperwork that guarantees its safe and untampered with.
Known freight is collected from bonded warehouses (In secure trucks) that are secure and taken to the sheds to be flown... if any suspicion of tampering is found, the whole consignment is reduced to unknown.
Dont give a damn who produced the paperwork, if in doubt, stamp it unknown.
Unknown freight either has to be x-rayed, hand searched, pressure tested, or left for 24hrs to defeat timers and pressure switches.
Food transport has special rules, but, again, the food factories that send the food are "Bonded" to ensure the food is safe when collected.
I can illuminate this further...
If passengers have luggage, it MUST be on the same plane ad themselves.
If a passenger disembarks the plane at any point, their luggage must follow them.
I ask, just how do I fly to Amsterdam and my luggage gets to Paris?...
My suitcase has more air-miles than I do, and that is worrying...
Especially as I work in air security from time to time and make damn well sure my luggage has its correct labels.
However, luggage or any goods that accompany the passenger must be on the same plane.
Is this a 9/11 thing?.. damn sure it is.
Things changed 0n that day, for the better, but security has never relaxed.
You can send something air-freight and follow on a separate plane, but, the freight then has to follow all air freight security checks of search as detailed above and may be delayed by as much as 24 hrs as a matter of routine.
There is no such thing as a screamer that affects security checks, it takes how ever long it takes, and if its more urgent than that, either pay a lot of money, (to hire extra security people), or send it earlier.
Non international air fields, they have the same security checks... or are supposed to have....
Mostly that goes by how much you "Trust" the sender.
If you just rock up unknown to an airfield and ask them to fly a box the size of an SUV from one end of the country to another, they are going to be a little more than suspicious...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 27, 2014 13:58:31 GMT
perhaps they do things differently in the Uk. here domestic freight never flies out from international terminals. - and perhaps they do have a "trusted status" list, and perhaps their procedures were changed after 9/11. but I know my own local regional airport flew domestic flights, and advertised that you needed to be there 15 minutes before the flight to be sure of getting the seat you wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 27, 2014 16:20:11 GMT
perhaps they do things differently in the Uk. here domestic freight never flies out from international terminals. - and perhaps they do have a "trusted status" list, and perhaps their procedures were changed after 9/11. but I know my own local regional airport flew domestic flights, and advertised that you needed to be there 15 minutes before the flight to be sure of getting the seat you wanted. We do indeed, Heathrow and Manchester airports advise getting to the airport 1.5 hrs before your flight for a domestic flight. From the Manchester website for example: I think as fewer people fly domestically, for our purposes driving is often just as quick bearing in mind the airport check in times, so our facilities tend to be mixed without dedicated Domestic terminals. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 27, 2014 16:40:03 GMT
perhaps they do things differently in the Uk. here domestic freight never flies out from international terminals. - and perhaps they do have a "trusted status" list, and perhaps their procedures were changed after 9/11. but I know my own local regional airport flew domestic flights, and advertised that you needed to be there 15 minutes before the flight to be sure of getting the seat you wanted. We do indeed, Heathrow and Manchester airports advise getting to the airport 1.5 hrs before your flight for a domestic flight. From the Manchester website for example: I think as fewer people fly domestically, for our purposes driving is often just as quick bearing in mind the airport check in times, so our facilities tend to be mixed without dedicated Domestic terminals. however Heathrow was, last I checked, an international airport - where all flights must follow the rules. in College, I made a couple flights from the local regional airport - granted, this was before 9/11 - they did not even own a metal detector. they just opened the door and we walked to the plane. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 28, 2014 9:30:04 GMT
Most UK regional airports are also international airports as well, in that they also serve al least 1 EU country, if not more, for example airports on the west coast will often have a flight to Eire, and on the East to The Netherlands or Scandinavia. If we take a small airport like Cambridge, www.cambridgeairport.comIt flys direct to Dublin and Amsterdam,, (you can then connect on KLM elsewhere) they say, Blue Island Flights Please check-in no later than 1 hour prior to the scehduled departure time Etihad Regional and CityJet Flights With Check-in Luggage – no later than 1 hour prior to the scheduled departure time. Without Check-in Luggage – no later than 45minutes prior to the schedule departure time. Okay a bit shorter than Heathrow, but still quite a wait. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jun 28, 2014 17:53:57 GMT
Not to be a stick in the mud here, but is there really anything to test?
Assuming that you know how to read a map, you know where you are on the map (or are able to figure it out) and you can find the place that you need to go to on the map, if you're any kind of reasonable, you're going to plot out your route before you even get in the car. If you don't start looking at the map before you're actually on the road, you're not only an idiot, you're dangerous to the people around you, because you're constantly distracted by looking at the map while driving.
Depending on how long and complex the route is, you may have to set waypoints where you stop and look at the map again to make sure you're on the right track, but that's about it.
When asking for directions, you typically meet one or more of these types:
1. People who don't know and admit it, leaving you to find someone who does.
2. People who don't know, but think they do and give you wrong directions.
3. People who know, but give you bad or confusing directions that you don't understand, so you'll have to ask someone else anyway.
4. People who know, but give you wrong directions, so you end up wasting time going in the wrong direction.
5. People who know the area so well that they reference things that you would've had to live in the area for 50 years to know about and thus are no help at all ("Go down to the Johnson farm, make a right turn toward the old paper mill, circle halfway around the gopher forest and across the dried up creek and it's right there next to that place that used to be a music store. If you reach Guadalajara, Mexico, you've gone too far. *Snicker*"
6. People who know and are actually capable of giving directions you can work with.
There's also the added problem with asking for directions without knowing anything about the area you're in, that if it's a particularly long or complex route you still have to ask people how to get to that specific destination. If you have a map and can see from it that you need to pass through three towns on the way to your destination, then you can start by setting the first town as a waypoint, stop there and consult the map again. But you only know about the three towns in between because you had the map to begin with. When asking for directions, since you don't know what's in between you and your destination you can't set waypoints that you can ask for directions to and then find someone there to ask for directions to the next waypoint. You have to ask for and remember the entire route. And that's only if you're lucky enough to find someone who knows the entire route to begin with.
Is there really any doubt the map will be more helpful? Why do you think they were even invented in the first place?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 28, 2014 18:56:44 GMT
Not to be a stick in the mud here, but is there really anything to test? Assuming that you know how to read a map, you know where you are on the map (or are able to figure it out) and you can find the place that you need to go to on the map, if you're any kind of reasonable, you're going to plot out your route before you even get in the car. If you don't start looking at the map before you're actually on the road, you're not only an idiot, you're dangerous to the people around you, because you're constantly distracted by looking at the map while driving. Depending on how long and complex the route is, you may have to set waypoints where you stop and look at the map again to make sure you're on the right track, but that's about it. When asking for directions, you typically meet one or more of these types: 1. People who don't know and admit it, leaving you to find someone who does. 2. People who don't know, but think they do and give you wrong directions. 3. People who know, but give you bad or confusing directions that you don't understand, so you'll have to ask someone else anyway. 4. People who know, but give you wrong directions, so you end up wasting time going in the wrong direction. 5. People who know the area so well that they reference things that you would've had to live in the area for 50 years to know about and thus are no help at all ("Go down to the Johnson farm, make a right turn toward the old paper mill, circle halfway around the gopher forest and across the dried up creek and it's right there next to that place that used to be a music store. If you reach Guadalajara, Mexico, you've gone too far. *Snicker*" 6. People who know and are actually capable of giving directions you can work with. There's also the added problem with asking for directions without knowing anything about the area you're in, that if it's a particularly long or complex route you still have to ask people how to get to that specific destination. If you have a map and can see from it that you need to pass through three towns on the way to your destination, then you can start by setting the first town as a waypoint, stop there and consult the map again. But you only know about the three towns in between because you had the map to begin with. When asking for directions, since you don't know what's in between you and your destination you can't set waypoints that you can ask for directions to and then find someone there to ask for directions to the next waypoint. You have to ask for and remember the entire route. And that's only if you're lucky enough to find someone who knows the entire route to begin with. Is there really any doubt the map will be more helpful? Why do you think they were even invented in the first place? well, that's what they asked to test, now, isn't it? but you make a good point about doing the navigation with the map in advance - and that would have to be part of the test: they get their destination when they get to the start point, and any time spent planning the route is included in the test time. |
|
