In message , at
01:47:47 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked:
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 09:53:15 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
15:16:31 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
On Monday, 5 October 2015 14:34:22 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:01:26 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
Of course, but you did seem to present Google Maps as a
better answer.

It's an acceptable answer, I'd say.

FSVO...

But it fails and/or misleads, aside from being unavailable at
some times
to some people.

Right, but the context here is arranging a journey by Uber. Under what
circumstances is it possible to order a car from Uber but be unable to
check the route via Apple or Google maps?

When the destination isn't mapped, or is mapped incorrectly.

You can only order an Uber car via the internet. You therefore have
the ability to check this fact on hand right then and there. If the
collected wisdom of the entire internet is unable to allow you to
figure out where you intend to go, then I would suggest you ought to be
reconsidering the wisdom of undertaking the journey until you get some
sort of clarification first.

This is a classic case of "let them eat cake". It's perfectly acceptable
to expect to be driven around an unfamiliar area by someone you are
paying to do it.

This has always been the distinction between a hackney carriage and a
minicab. it's existed for decades.

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

It has always been the case that minicab drivers won't be expected to
have the same knowledge of routes and destination as proper taxi
drivers, that's part of the trade-off for the (potentially) lower
prices. In this context, Uber is just another minicab operator. If
you are not comfortable with this level of driver knowledge, take a
"proper" taxi. There is absolutely nothing new here that Uber brings
to the argument.

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z, and if all else fails they can call
the office - I had that happen in Dubai once, when what I assumed to be
their equivalent of a private hire car didn't know where a particular
5-star hotel was, two miles from the airport.

Having got there, perhaps if I'd said "across the road from the main
police station" that would have rung a larger bell.

The "private hire" industry (i.e. minicabs) have not had a requirement
for doing "the knowledge" for decades. I recall getting in a minicab
in Croydon over 20 years ago and discovering the driver had no clue
where he was going.

I've been in a Nottingham Hackney that got lost two miles from the
station

I don't know what standards Nottingham applies to its Hackney drivers,
but potentially that ought to be grounds for a complaint to the
licensing authority.

This was "south of the river" and not in the City. even though only two
miles from the station. I don't know what their rules are for that kind
of potentially out-of-area trip.

At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps
available (that's how they find their customers, after all).

If you can find your destination on a map.

Right, so we're back to the choice of a Hackney where you have
reasonable confidence that the driver knows the area, or a minicab (of
which Uber is a subset) where the driver may not. If you don't know
where you're going, and can't figure it out, that's a pretty good
indicator a minicab driver won't either,

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

in which case you probably ought to be paying the higher price for the
premium service offered by a proper Hackney carriage.

There's nothing wrong, on the face of it, with a minicab company
externalising much of its 'local knowledge' to the passengers, as long
as we understand it won't work for everyone.

A rubicon that was crossed a long time ago by the minicab industry, and
has been greatly alleviated by GPS based navigation methods.

Minicab drivers, especially in the provinces, do often know where places
are "the Hilton somewhere near Stansted Airport", and so on.

A google search provided its location on a map in less than 3 seconds

I deliberate picked an example that even the numptiest minicab driver
should be able to find. Having said that there was an ambulance that
couldn't find Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge in the news about a
year ago.

more than the time it took me to type "hilton stansted airport" into
google search. The point is, the overlap between "places I (or a
minicab driver) can't find on google" and "places people set out to go
to without knowing where they are" is tiny.

Read the examples posted at the weekend. There are many arising from
just a couple of straw polls.

And that's before we look at the Digital Divide and possible
disadvantages to people looking
for timely and affordable traditional solutions.

That ship sailed a long time ago. There is pretty much no aspect of
any part of travelling from one place to another in the modern world in
which the most timely and affordable solutions are available without an
internet connection. If this were uk.railway I would mention goats.

That's simply not true. I'm very happy to catch buses without any input
from the Internet - just a timetable and map at the bus stop.

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

Just the other day I was going to a friend's house in greater London,
and wanted to get a bus from the station to avoid a 20 minute walk.
There are two potential routes, leaving from two different bus stops by
the station. If I went with your "go to the bus stop and see what I
get" approach, I have a 50/50 chance of picking the wrong one and
getting a less timely journey. As it happened I used modern technology
to solve this problem, and was able to find out which bus was better
based on the specific circumstances of my journey. Of course your
solution also fails if the information displayed on the bus stop is out
of date or rendered illegible due to vandalism.

And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty
feet apart.
--
Roland Perry

On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:22:55 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
01:47:47 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked:
On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 09:53:15 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
15:16:31 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
On Monday, 5 October 2015 14:34:22 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:01:26 on Mon, 5 Oct 2015, remarked:
Of course, but you did seem to present Google Maps as a
better answer.

It's an acceptable answer, I'd say.

FSVO...

But it fails and/or misleads, aside from being unavailable at
some times
to some people.

Right, but the context here is arranging a journey by Uber. Under what
circumstances is it possible to order a car from Uber but be unable to
check the route via Apple or Google maps?

When the destination isn't mapped, or is mapped incorrectly.

You can only order an Uber car via the internet. You therefore have
the ability to check this fact on hand right then and there. If the
collected wisdom of the entire internet is unable to allow you to
figure out where you intend to go, then I would suggest you ought to be
reconsidering the wisdom of undertaking the journey until you get some
sort of clarification first.

This is a classic case of "let them eat cake". It's perfectly acceptable
to expect to be driven around an unfamiliar area by someone you are
paying to do it.

This has always been the distinction between a hackney carriage and a
minicab. it's existed for decades.

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

A smartphone with GPS and access to google maps is not "the very latest expensive technology", it's cheap commodity off the shelf technology that most people already have. You can buy an android handset SIM free for about £100 these days.

It has always been the case that minicab drivers won't be expected to
have the same knowledge of routes and destination as proper taxi
drivers, that's part of the trade-off for the (potentially) lower
prices. In this context, Uber is just another minicab operator. If
you are not comfortable with this level of driver knowledge, take a
"proper" taxi. There is absolutely nothing new here that Uber brings
to the argument.

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z

So your point is you don't have to point out your destination on a map because they have a map (on which you can point out your destination)?

The "private hire" industry (i.e. minicabs) have not had a requirement
for doing "the knowledge" for decades. I recall getting in a minicab
in Croydon over 20 years ago and discovering the driver had no clue
where he was going.

I've been in a Nottingham Hackney that got lost two miles from the
station

I don't know what standards Nottingham applies to its Hackney drivers,
but potentially that ought to be grounds for a complaint to the
licensing authority.

This was "south of the river" and not in the City. even though only two
miles from the station. I don't know what their rules are for that kind
of potentially out-of-area trip.

At least with Uber you know the driver will have GPS enabled maps
available (that's how they find their customers, after all).

If you can find your destination on a map.

Right, so we're back to the choice of a Hackney where you have
reasonable confidence that the driver knows the area, or a minicab (of
which Uber is a subset) where the driver may not. If you don't know
where you're going, and can't figure it out, that's a pretty good
indicator a minicab driver won't either,

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

What's your point here? Before you were arguing that minicab drivers might not know where you are going and how terrible that was, and now you are saying that minicab drivers will know where they are going because they drive around the place all the time and get to know the neighbourhood. Well which is it?

in which case you probably ought to be paying the higher price for the
premium service offered by a proper Hackney carriage.

There's nothing wrong, on the face of it, with a minicab company
externalising much of its 'local knowledge' to the passengers, as long
as we understand it won't work for everyone.

A rubicon that was crossed a long time ago by the minicab industry, and
has been greatly alleviated by GPS based navigation methods.

Minicab drivers, especially in the provinces, do often know where places
are "the Hilton somewhere near Stansted Airport", and so on.

A google search provided its location on a map in less than 3 seconds

I deliberate picked an example that even the numptiest minicab driver
should be able to find.

You've been banging on about all these places you might want to go that can't be found on google maps, and then when you give an example you chose one that can be found on google maps in a trifle. So where are all these places people want to go that can't be found on google maps?

And that's before we look at the Digital Divide and possible
disadvantages to people looking
for timely and affordable traditional solutions.

That ship sailed a long time ago. There is pretty much no aspect of
any part of travelling from one place to another in the modern world in
which the most timely and affordable solutions are available without an
internet connection. If this were uk.railway I would mention goats.

That's simply not true. I'm very happy to catch buses without any input
from the Internet - just a timetable and map at the bus stop.

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

So is staying at home. You specifically didn't say "cheapest possible", you chose to argue on a condition, "timely and affordable". Smartphones are not expensive these days and have myriad uses beyond finding public transport.

In message , at
05:10:58 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked:

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

A smartphone with GPS and access to google maps is not "the very latest
expensive technology", it's cheap commodity off the shelf technology
that most people already have. You can buy an android handset SIM free
for about £100 these days.

And roaming data?

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z

So your point is you don't have to point out your destination on a map
because they have a map (on which you can point out your destination)?

No, I don't point at their paper map because I don't know exactly where
the destination is. It's their job to translate the description of the
destination to co-ordinates.

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

What's your point here? Before you were arguing that minicab drivers
might not know where you are going and how terrible that was, and now
you are saying that minicab drivers will know where they are going
because they drive around the place all the time and get to know the
neighbourhood. Well which is it?

It's the way that Uber drivers can apparently fail to concede they have
any local knowledge about destinations, because it's the passenger's
responsibility to point to a location on a map.

You've been banging on about all these places you might want to go that
can't be found on google maps, and then when you give an example you
chose one that can be found on google maps in a trifle. So where are
all these places people want to go that can't be found on google maps?

Your starter for ten: The Ely Post Office.

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

So is staying at home. You specifically didn't say "cheapest
possible", you chose to argue on a condition, "timely and affordable".
Smartphones are not expensive these days and have myriad uses beyond
finding public transport.

Are we really arguing about the difference between "most affordable" and
"cheapest possible". If so I give up.

And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty
feet apart.

Which is not in London. As this is uk.transport.london, I figured an
example of buses in London would be a more appropriate example.

London is big enough, I could find a similar example if I wanted to.
--
Roland Perry

On 2015-10-06 15:40:00 +0000, Roland Perry said:

And roaming data?

£2/day if you're an O2 user. It's getting more sensibly affordable.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

In message , at 19:21:45 on Tue, 6 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked:

And roaming data?

£2/day if you're an O2 user. It's getting more sensibly affordable.

That's only in Europe. Their standard rates outside Europe are £1/MB it
seems.
--
Roland Perry

On 07/10/2015 08:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:21:45 on Tue, 6 Oct
2015, Neil Williams remarked:

And roaming data?

£2/day if you're an O2 user. It's getting more sensibly affordable.

That's only in Europe. Their standard rates outside Europe are £1/MB it
seems.

If you have unlimited data and unlimited calls within the UK on a Three
package, it also applies at the same rates (ie, inclusive) in the USA
and loads of other places.

But you have, of course, to pay international rates for calls within the
USA (or wherever).

In message , at 13:55:43 on Wed, 7 Oct
2015, JNugent remarked:
And roaming data?

£2/day if you're an O2 user. It's getting more sensibly affordable.

That's only in Europe. Their standard rates outside Europe are £1/MB it
seems.

If you have unlimited data and unlimited calls within the UK on a Three
package,

Is that a contract, or a pay monthly/PAYG thing?

it also applies at the same rates (ie, inclusive) in the USA and loads
of other places.

That'll be the "Feel at Home" destinations, a whole 18 countries out of
200. And has all sorts of anomalies - covering France and Switzerland,
but not Belgium and the Netherlands, for example.
--
Roland Perry

On Tuesday, 6 October 2015 17:50:21 UTC+2, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:10:58 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked:

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

A smartphone with GPS and access to google maps is not "the very latest
expensive technology", it's cheap commodity off the shelf technology
that most people already have. You can buy an android handset SIM free
for about £100 these days.

And roaming data?

Having bought your cheapo SIM-free handset, getting a local SIM card at your point of arrival in your foreign destination is dirt cheap.

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z

So your point is you don't have to point out your destination on a map
because they have a map (on which you can point out your destination)?

No, I don't point at their paper map because I don't know exactly where
the destination is. It's their job to translate the description of the
destination to co-ordinates.

So just like an Uber driver then. Except that Uber drivers have the ability to search on google if they don't recognise your description, whereas a conventional minicab driver with an AtoZ will just be left guessing.

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

What's your point here? Before you were arguing that minicab drivers
might not know where you are going and how terrible that was, and now
you are saying that minicab drivers will know where they are going
because they drive around the place all the time and get to know the
neighbourhood. Well which is it?

It's the way that Uber drivers can apparently fail to concede they have
any local knowledge about destinations, because it's the passenger's
responsibility to point to a location on a map.

Do you have experience of Uber drivers behaving like this, or are you just making this up? I mean it's not like Uber drivers are making a living by driving people around where they might notice local landmarks or anything.

You've been banging on about all these places you might want to go that
can't be found on google maps, and then when you give an example you
chose one that can be found on google maps in a trifle. So where are
all these places people want to go that can't be found on google maps?

Your starter for ten: The Ely Post Office.

Typing that into the maps app on my phone puts a pin in the map on Market St, a little to the east of where the pedestrianised "Chequer Ln" meets it. It also offers up a link to www.postoffice.co.uk, and if I follow that and type "Ely" into its branch finder, it offers a street address of

Central Hall, Unit 2,
Market Street,
Ely,
Cambridgeshire
CB7 4LU

A google search for "Ely Post Office" also turns up some local newspaper stories form January suggesting it has moved to "permanent" premises on Market St after being in a portacabin for a while. Has it moved again (and www.postoffice.co.uk not been updated)?

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

So is staying at home. You specifically didn't say "cheapest
possible", you chose to argue on a condition, "timely and affordable".
Smartphones are not expensive these days and have myriad uses beyond
finding public transport.

Are we really arguing about the difference between "most affordable" and
"cheapest possible". If so I give up.

No, "timely and affordable" is not the same as "most affordable" or "cheapest possible". Walking to the bus stop and looking at the signs on it (and hoping they are correct) is cheaper than using a smart phone, but is not the most efficient way of conducting that journey. Smartphones have reached the price point where they are affordable to all parts of society.

And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty
feet apart.

Which is not in London. As this is uk.transport.london, I figured an
example of buses in London would be a more appropriate example.

London is big enough, I could find a similar example if I wanted to.

Right, but without knowing a priori that there is or is not a second alternative bus route, you have no way of knowing that the bus stop you have chosen is the best one to use for your journey. Some journeys have only a single bus route, others have multiple. If you want the most timely journey option, you need to do a bit of research. Back in the day the time taken to do that was prohibitive. Today, with modern, affordable technology, it is not.

Robin

In message , at
02:53:33 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked:

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

A smartphone with GPS and access to google maps is not "the very latest
expensive technology", it's cheap commodity off the shelf technology
that most people already have. You can buy an android handset SIM free
for about £100 these days.

And roaming data?

Having bought your cheapo SIM-free handset, getting a local SIM card at
your point of arrival in your foreign destination is dirt cheap.

Have you actually tried that in authoritarian countries like India or
Egypt? And when I went looking for a local SIM in Brussels it took me
several days to find a shop which had one - they don't have phone stores
on every street corner like we do in London.

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z

So your point is you don't have to point out your destination on a map
because they have a map (on which you can point out your destination)?

No, I don't point at their paper map because I don't know exactly where
the destination is. It's their job to translate the description of the
destination to co-ordinates.

So just like an Uber driver then. Except that Uber drivers have the
ability to search on google if they don't recognise your description,
whereas a conventional minicab driver with an AtoZ will just be left
guessing.

Hold on! I thought you couldn't get a Uber driver to be assigned to you
unless *you* had *first* pointed to the destination on an online map.

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

What's your point here? Before you were arguing that minicab drivers
might not know where you are going and how terrible that was, and now
you are saying that minicab drivers will know where they are going
because they drive around the place all the time and get to know the
neighbourhood. Well which is it?

It's the way that Uber drivers can apparently fail to concede they have
any local knowledge about destinations, because it's the passenger's
responsibility to point to a location on a map.

Do you have experience of Uber drivers behaving like this, or are you
just making this up?

See above. What's your experience of hiring a Uber driver and then
*afterwards* discussing with them where you want to go?

I mean it's not like Uber drivers are making a living by driving people
around where they might notice local landmarks or anything.

You've been banging on about all these places you might want to go that
can't be found on google maps, and then when you give an example you
chose one that can be found on google maps in a trifle. So where are
all these places people want to go that can't be found on google maps?

Your starter for ten: The Ely Post Office.

Typing that into the maps app on my phone puts a pin in the map on
Market St, a little to the east of where the pedestrianised "Chequer
Ln" meets it.

That's presumably an iPhone, not Google maps.

It also offers up a link to www.postoffice.co.uk, and if I follow that
and type "Ely" into its branch finder, it offers a street address of

Central Hall, Unit 2,
Market Street,
Ely,
Cambridgeshire
CB7 4LU

A google search for "Ely Post Office" also turns up some local
newspaper stories form January suggesting it has moved to "permanent"
premises on Market St after being in a portacabin for a while. Has it
moved again (and www.postoffice.co.uk not been updated)?

That's the final location, but Google maps hasn't caught up yet.

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

So is staying at home. You specifically didn't say "cheapest
possible", you chose to argue on a condition, "timely and affordable".
Smartphones are not expensive these days and have myriad uses beyond
finding public transport.

Are we really arguing about the difference between "most affordable" and
"cheapest possible". If so I give up.

No, "timely and affordable" is not the same as "most affordable" or
"cheapest possible". Walking to the bus stop and looking at the signs
on it (and hoping they are correct) is cheaper than using a smart
phone, but is not the most efficient way of conducting that journey.
Smartphones have reached the price point where they are affordable to
all parts of society.

I disagree. Neither a monthly contract, nor an unlocked phone plus a
maze of "SIM only" deals to negotiate, are value for money for someone
who only needs it once or twice a month.

And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty
feet apart.

Which is not in London. As this is uk.transport.london, I figured an
example of buses in London would be a more appropriate example.

London is big enough, I could find a similar example if I wanted to.

Right, but without knowing a priori that there is or is not a second
alternative bus route, you have no way of knowing that the bus stop you
have chosen is the best one to use for your journey. Some journeys
have only a single bus route, others have multiple. If you want the
most timely journey option, you need to do a bit of research. Back in
the day the time taken to do that was prohibitive.

Not when there are two adjacent bus stops, and about four routes to
choose from.

Today, with modern, affordable technology, it is not.

Actually, very many online bus timetable resources in the provinces are
woefully out of date.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 04:40:00PM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
05:10:58 on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, remarked:
I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.
A smartphone with GPS and access to google maps is not "the very latest
expensive technology", it's cheap commodity off the shelf technology
that most people already have. You can buy an android handset SIM free
for about ?100 these days.
And roaming data?

Data coverage is pretty much universal in London, and if you're in a
local black spot walking a few yards in any direction will fix that for
you.

Roaming is cheap in the EU, but in any case if you're travelling abroad
then you can jolly well afford a few bytes. It'll cost peanuts compared
to your travel and accomodation.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

Guns aren't the problem. People who deserve to die are the problem.