OT: My personal test of 20 free offline Android gps map routing applications

[Danny D'Amico]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 06:41:23 -0800, ***@optonline.net wrote:

>> http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3737/11099154624_f8a05495cb_o.gif
>
> The funnel shaped thing to the left of the signal bars is
> the wifi symbol. On my Android, if I'm on the carrier's data
> network, instead of the wifi symbol, I get 3g, or 4g, together
> with tiny up/down arrows if data is actually being transferred.

Thanks for that interpretation and additional information:

I don't think I've ever seen a 3g or 4g symbol, but, I admit,
I had never looked for it either. I'll start looking at those
symbols. (I wonder if there is a lookup table somewhere?)

I just noticed the fifth symbol, counting from the left, is Viber,
and the 4th and 8th are email programs, so, that screenshot shows
working email, VOIP, and WiFi, all without a data plan.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3737/11099154624_f8a05495cb_o.gif

[Danny D'Amico]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:41:14 +0000, Danny D'Amico wrote:

> I just wish it would find POIs in the *direction* of the route
> like Aponia "Be-On-Road" does (which otherwise stinks).

The half-dozen *very basic* things I'd *want* in freeware GPS
which mostly aren't there are:

1) Finding POIs in the *direction* of the route.
Only Aponia Be On Road did that.

2) Change a route by *dragging* it.
Only Alk CoPilot did that.

3) POIs with *dialable phone* numbers:
Only Alk CoPilot did that.

4) Voice guidance *reminds you* of the next turn, on command!
None of the freeware programs did this simple act. :(

5) Map displays the *next roadname* so you know what signs to read!
Surprisingly, only ZANavi had this feature!

6) Map displays time-and-miles-to-destination.
Alk CoPilot & Mapsource Navigator displayed this information.

[Danny D'Amico]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 18:02:15 +0000, Danny D'Amico wrote:

> I just noticed the fifth symbol, counting from the left, is Viber,
> and the 4th and 8th are email programs, so, that screenshot shows
> working email, VOIP, and WiFi, all without a data plan.
> http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3737/11099154624_f8a05495cb_o.gif

Also, the Talk-to-Text works just fine without a data plan,
so, I can, for example, text simply by speaking into the phone
or the Motorola bluetooth speaker on my vehicle visor, and it
sends transcribed texts hands free, even without a data plan.

This isn't well known, since most people *assume* that the
speech-to-text synthesis requires a data connection (it doesn't
but it's not obvious that it works without data, unless/unless
you test it out yourself).

[Danny D'Amico]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:28:36 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

>> http://www.phonebunch.com/compare-phones/motorola_moto_x-1020-vs-blu_dash_4.5-1132/
>
> Serious drawbacks:
> 2. Needs more internal memory.
> 3. Inability to run apps on the external card. I don't want to use the
> phone as an mp3 player, so the utility of the external card is far less
> than I expected. This may be an Android rather than a BLU thing.
>
> I'd like to NOT have to push the power button before I swipe to make the
> screen turn back on -- The fewer times I have to operate a mechanical
> switch the happier I am. Again, this may be an android thing rather
> than a BLU thing.
>

The 4GB of internal memory is rather puny.
I've also been burned, by the LG Optimus F3 lack of internal memory.

It seems Android is really <really> lousy at allowing apps to be
moved from internal memory over to the external SDcard. Sigh.

[Danny D'Amico]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 19:12:08 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

> I ask them "so is that I-81 north or south?" or something
> like that and tell them that I'll never remember a random number/letter
> combination

Heh heh ... I-81 would have to be a north:south road, since it's odd.
I-80 would be east:west.

Now the three-digit roads are the ones you can't tell which direction
they go. For example, I-280, I-380, I-580, I-680, etc. all *connect*
to the two-digit I-80, which is an east:west road, but, all those
three-digit roads can go in all directions. All you know from the
name is which road they connect to (which is always the two digit
part of the three-digit road).

Of course, if you know which way roads are numbered, in a single
mile, just watching the mile markers (or exit numbers), you can
tell which direction you're going - without GPS! :)

For example, if you go from mile 9 to mile 10, then you know you're
going north on a north:south road, or you're going east on a
east:west road. Likewise, if you pass exit 9 and then you see exit
12, you know that you just went in the same direction, as above,
even if you didn't catch the mile markers in between.

These mile:exit numbers always start from the state line, or, from
the beginning:end of the road (whichever is longest). Not all two-digit
roads exist - but the pattern is a predictable grid.

Since the two-digit interstates rule the grid, it's important to note
that they follow the same pattern. That is, I-5, to I-15 to I-35 ...
to I-95 are all north:south roads, counting from the west to the east
in increasing numbers. (For example, I-5 is in California, and I-95
is in the east coast.)

Same thing with the two-digit even-numbered Interstates. I-10 is
in the south, I-20 further north, I-30 even further ... until you get
to I-80 and I-90 furthest north.

In summary, the roads all follow a predictable grid, with the numbers
of both the two-digit interstates and the mile markers increasing as you
go from south to north and from west to east, with the two-digit interstates
starting at I-5 in the west and I-95 in the east, and with I-10 in the
south and I-90 in the north. The three-digit roads merely connect to
two-digit roads.

That's why you can have an I-280 in California and another I-280 in
New Jersey. Same reason you can have multiple I-495's back east.

But, you can't have an I-280 in the south; nor can you have an I-495
in the west. The corresponding roads would be I-210 and I-405 instead.

Anyway, you know the direction, and what roads you're connecting to,
simply by the numbers - even without GPS! :)

[Mike Yetto]

In a world where Danny D'Amico <***@is.invalid>
posts to Usenet...
> Of course, if you know which way roads are numbered, in a single
> mile, just watching the mile markers (or exit numbers), you can
> tell which direction you're going - without GPS! :)

> For example, if you go from mile 9 to mile 10, then you know you're
> going north on a north:south road, or you're going east on a
> east:west road. Likewise, if you pass exit 9 and then you see exit
> 12, you know that you just went in the same direction, as above,
> even if you didn't catch the mile markers in between.

This doesn't hold true everywhere. The New York State Thruway
(I-87 NYC - Albany & I-90 Albany - PA state Line) has increasing
mile markers heading north to Albany as your pattern indicates,
and the markers continue to increase heading west to Buffalo then
south to Pennsylvania.

Mike "not rules so much as guidelines" Yetto
--
"Those who fear the facts will forever try to discredit the
fact-finders."
- Daniel Dennett

[Danny D'Amico]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 08:39:54 +0000, Danny D'Amico wrote:

> These mile:exit numbers always start from the state line, or, from
> the beginning:end of the road (whichever is longest).

I just realized, belatedly, when I said "whichever is longest",
I meant that the numbering start is still *always* inside the state.

And I do agree these are more "observed guidelines", than hard
and fast rules - but my observations seem to hold true in the
following situations (even sans GPS):

DANNY's 10 OBSERVED GUIDELINES:
1) Even two-digit interstates travel west:east
2) Odd two-digit interstates travel south:north
3) Even two-digit interstates increase south-to-north (10 to 90)
4) Odd two-digit interstates increase west-to-east (5 to 95)
3) mile #1 is the western state border for two-digit interstates
6) mile #1 is the southern state border for two-digit interstates
7) two-digit interstates are unique to the country
8) three-digit interstates are only unique to the states
9) three-digit interstates connect to the two-digit equivalent
10) three-digit interstates can go in any direction (usually spurs)

[k***@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 19:51:57 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
<***@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 08:39:54 +0000, Danny D'Amico wrote:
>
>> These mile:exit numbers always start from the state line, or, from
>> the beginning:end of the road (whichever is longest).
>
>I just realized, belatedly, when I said "whichever is longest",
>I meant that the numbering start is still *always* inside the state.
>
>And I do agree these are more "observed guidelines", than hard
>and fast rules - but my observations seem to hold true in the
>following situations (even sans GPS):
>
>DANNY's 10 OBSERVED GUIDELINES:
>1) Even two-digit interstates travel west:east
>2) Odd two-digit interstates travel south:north
>3) Even two-digit interstates increase south-to-north (10 to 90)
>4) Odd two-digit interstates increase west-to-east (5 to 95)

Except I90 in NY, as was pointed out earlier.

>3) mile #1 is the western state border for two-digit interstates

Except I87/90, which is numbered from NYC.

>6) mile #1 is the southern state border for two-digit interstates
>7) two-digit interstates are unique to the country
>8) three-digit interstates are only unique to the states
>9) three-digit interstates connect to the two-digit equivalent
(where the second two digits are the same as the two-digit
interstate)
>10) three-digit interstates can go in any direction (usually spurs)

11) Three-digit Interstates, where the first digit is odd, go into the
city (point to point).
12) Mile-1 of such follows the same rules as above
13) Three-digit Interstates, where the first digit is even, bypass the
city.
14) Mile-1 of the three-digit Interstate with the even first digit,
starts at the lower numbered end of the two-digit interstate it's
numbered for and continues clockwise. If a piece is missing, so are
those mile markers.

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:54:44 -0500, krw wrote:
>>1) Even two-digit interstates travel west:east
>>2) Odd two-digit interstates travel south:north
>>3) Even two-digit interstates increase south-to-north (10 to 90)
>>4) Odd two-digit interstates increase west-to-east (5 to 95)
>
> Except I90 in NY, as was pointed out earlier.

I don't understand.

Here's a map of i90:
http://www.i90highway.com/images/interstate-90-map.gif

From *that map*, I90 fits the observed guidelines perfectly.
It's a two-digit even interstate. Right?

Therefore, it is an east:west road (because it's even),
and, it's physically *above* i80 (because the even numbered
interstates are named in increasing numbers from south
to north).

So, i90 fits perfectly items #1 and #3. Right?

[k***@attt.bizz]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:11:18 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<***@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:54:44 -0500, krw wrote:
>>>1) Even two-digit interstates travel west:east
>>>2) Odd two-digit interstates travel south:north
>>>3) Even two-digit interstates increase south-to-north (10 to 90)
>>>4) Odd two-digit interstates increase west-to-east (5 to 95)
>>
>> Except I90 in NY, as was pointed out earlier.
>
>I don't understand.
>
>Here's a map of i90:
> http://www.i90highway.com/images/interstate-90-map.gif
>
>From *that map*, I90 fits the observed guidelines perfectly.
>It's a two-digit even interstate. Right?

No, the numbering of I90 (New York State Thruway) is not West to East,
rather it's numbered starting at NYC (where the Thruway is I87). So,
it's numbered East to West in the segment from Albany to the PA line.

>Therefore, it is an east:west road (because it's even),
>and, it's physically *above* i80 (because the even numbered
>interstates are named in increasing numbers from south
>to north).
>
>So, i90 fits perfectly items #1 and #3. Right?

I90 doesn't fit #3 at all. It's even. ;-)

It doesn't fit #4 because the I90 section of the NYS Thruway is
numbered East to West (origin=NYC - Yonkers?).

[Danny D'Amico]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:03:36 -0500, krw wrote:

> No, the numbering of I90 (New York State Thruway) is not West to East,
> rather it's numbered starting at NYC (where the Thruway is I87). So,
> it's numbered East to West in the segment from Albany to the PA line.

I think you're mixing up my terms, which I admit is my fault for not
being clear.

When I mean numbering, I mean *naming*.

You mistook it for mile numbering, which, I admit, is my fault for
not being clear.

So, I understand what you're saying, and I know what I was saying,
so, putting it together, I can summarize three things:

1. The NAMING of i90 makes sense because it's both
a) North of i80 (where the higher road name is to the north)
b) An east:west road (where the even numbers denote east:west)

However, the MILE MARKER NUMBERING of the road does NOT fit the
normal numbering scheme, which is that the left-most mile (starting
at the state border) is mile 0.

In the case of i90, mile 0 is at NYC, which is the right-most mile.

This is unlike, for example, i80, which used to be numbered with
NYC being mile 0, but they revamped the numbers such that mile 0
in NJ is at the border with Pennsylvania, and mile 0 in Pennsylvania
is at the border of Ohio, etc.

[k***@attt.bizz]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 21:49:53 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
<***@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:03:36 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> No, the numbering of I90 (New York State Thruway) is not West to East,
>> rather it's numbered starting at NYC (where the Thruway is I87). So,
>> it's numbered East to West in the segment from Albany to the PA line.
>
>I think you're mixing up my terms, which I admit is my fault for not
>being clear.
>
>When I mean numbering, I mean *naming*.
>
>You mistook it for mile numbering, which, I admit, is my fault for
>not being clear.
>
>So, I understand what you're saying, and I know what I was saying,
>so, putting it together, I can summarize three things:
>
>1. The NAMING of i90 makes sense because it's both
>a) North of i80 (where the higher road name is to the north)
>b) An east:west road (where the even numbers denote east:west)

Yes.

>However, the MILE MARKER NUMBERING of the road does NOT fit the
>normal numbering scheme, which is that the left-most mile (starting
>at the state border) is mile 0.

Correct.

>In the case of i90, mile 0 is at NYC, which is the right-most mile.

Not quite. Mile-0 of the New York State Thruway is at the NYC border.
It is *I87* at that point. Mile-460 of the NYS Thruway is at the PA
border, where it is I90. The NYS Thruway changes from I87 to I90 at
Albany (where I87 continues to the Canuckistan border and I87 to the
MA border, both as freeways).

The New York State Thruway predates the Interstate system so was
grandfathered into the Interstate system. The Interstate road
numbering was added later, to match the convention but the mile
markers and exit numbers were already assigned so rather than
confusing everyone, they just let them be (probably the only thing NYS
has done right in its history).

>This is unlike, for example, i80, which used to be numbered with
>NYC being mile 0, but they revamped the numbers such that mile 0
>in NJ is at the border with Pennsylvania, and mile 0 in Pennsylvania
>is at the border of Ohio, etc.

I don't know the history of I80, but yes.

[Danny D'Amico]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:28:23 -0500, krw wrote:

> The New York State Thruway predates the Interstate system so was
> grandfathered into the Interstate system. The Interstate road
> numbering was added later, to match the convention but the mile
> markers and exit numbers were already assigned

I don't know the history of the NJ Turnpike, but perhaps it's
similar ...

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:54:44 -0500, krw wrote:

>>1) Even two-digit interstates travel west:east
>>2) Odd two-digit interstates travel south:north
>>3) Even two-digit interstates increase south-to-north (10 to 90)
>>4) Odd two-digit interstates increase west-to-east (5 to 95)
>
> Except I87/90, which is numbered from NYC.

Again, I don't understand.

I googled for I87,and found this map of it in NY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_87

From that, it fits perfectly the guidelines.

a) It's an odd-numbered road, so it goes north:south
b) It's a high number, so it's on the east coast instead of the west coast (which has the low odd numbers).

So, i87 perfectly fits those two guidelines. Right?

[k***@attt.bizz]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:15:52 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<***@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:54:44 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>>>1) Even two-digit interstates travel west:east
>>>2) Odd two-digit interstates travel south:north
>>>3) Even two-digit interstates increase south-to-north (10 to 90)
>>>4) Odd two-digit interstates increase west-to-east (5 to 95)
>>
>> Except I87/90, which is numbered from NYC.
>
>Again, I don't understand.
>
>I googled for I87,and found this map of it in NY:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_87
>
>From that, it fits perfectly the guidelines.

I87 does. I90 does not.

>a) It's an odd-numbered road, so it goes north:south
>b) It's a high number, so it's on the east coast instead of the west coast (which has the low odd numbers).
>
>So, i87 perfectly fits those two guidelines. Right?

I90, in New York, does not. For one, it does not start with '1'. It
starts where I87 leaves off.

http://www.thruway.ny.gov/travelers/interchanges/index.html?sess=c2e443f3bda5917d38d4e2837f359d6d

Note that mile-0 is at the NYC line, mile-133 is where I90 starts, and
mile-496 is the PA state line (with the normal scheme, this should be
mile-0. Interchanges are numbered in a similar way, starting with '1'
at NYC and 61 being the last exit before PA.

[Danny D'Amico]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:12:29 -0500, krw wrote:

> Note that mile-0 is at the NYC line, mile-133 is where I90 starts, and
> mile-496 is the PA state line (with the normal scheme, this should be
> mile-0. Interchanges are numbered in a similar way, starting with '1'
> at NYC and 61 being the last exit before PA.

Oh. OK. The *mile* markers don't follow correctly for i90. OK. Now I
understand. Hmmm... I wonder why not?

It may be interesting to note that i80 also had started at the George
Washington Bridge entrance to NYC; but a few decades ago, they re-numbered
all the exits to start at mile 0 at the Pennyslvania border.

Maybe there was a change in the conventions and i90 just hasn't caught
up yet? Dunno.

[k***@attt.bizz]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 21:44:52 +0000 (UTC), Danny D'Amico
<***@is.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:12:29 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> Note that mile-0 is at the NYC line, mile-133 is where I90 starts, and
>> mile-496 is the PA state line (with the normal scheme, this should be
>> mile-0. Interchanges are numbered in a similar way, starting with '1'
>> at NYC and 61 being the last exit before PA.
>
>Oh. OK. The *mile* markers don't follow correctly for i90. OK. Now I
>understand. Hmmm... I wonder why not?

The NYS Thruway predates the Interstate highway system. It was
already a done deal when the Interstate conventions were made. It
really would have been a mess if they renumbered all of the exits and
mile markers.

>It may be interesting to note that i80 also had started at the George
>Washington Bridge entrance to NYC; but a few decades ago, they re-numbered
>all the exits to start at mile 0 at the Pennyslvania border.
>
>Maybe there was a change in the conventions and i90 just hasn't caught
>up yet? Dunno.

It won't. It's a lot more than mile markers. ...or should I say that
the mile markers are used for a lot more on I90/I87.

[The Real Bev]

On 12/29/2013 01:44 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:

> It may be interesting to note that i80 also had started at the George
> Washington Bridge entrance to NYC; but a few decades ago, they re-numbered
> all the exits to start at mile 0 at the Pennyslvania border.

Long ago there was an I Love Lucy (or maybe The Long Long Trailer, it's
been a while) that featured Lucy making a U-turn on the GW Bridge. In
perhaps 1990, while attempting to get out of New York in our 27-foot
monsterhome, we found ourself inexplicably heading back in via the GWB.
We didn't want to pay the toll just to turn around as soon as
possible, so I consulted the bridgekeeper. He told me to wait for a
lull in traffic and make a U turn. I did.

> Maybe there was a change in the conventions and i90 just hasn't caught
> up yet? Dunno.

The roads never catch up with anything. It's frightening to think that
if we doubled the freeways in Los Angeles we'd have half as much traffic
which would STILL be a monumental traffic jam.

--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"It doesn't get any easier - you just go faster."
-- Greg Lemond

[Gene E. Bloch]

On 12/30/2013, The Real Bev posted:
> Long ago there was an I Love Lucy (or maybe The Long Long Trailer,
> it's been a while) that featured Lucy making a U-turn on the GW
> Bridge. In perhaps 1990, while attempting to get out of New York in
> our 27-foot monsterhome, we found ourself inexplicably heading back
> in via the GWB. We didn't want to pay the toll just to turn around
> as soon as possible, so I consulted the bridgekeeper. He told me to
> wait for a lull in traffic and make a U turn. I did.

Also long ago I somehow got onto the GW bridge heading to NJ when I
wanted to stay in NYC.

When I got to the toll gate, I asked how I cold turn around and avoid
the toll as well. The toll-taker asked us for our out-of-state license
number (which amused us). She didn't charge us, and she told us how to
get back on the east-bound side. It wasn't a U-turn as such, but some
lanes that got us going east.

Our plates *were* from out of both NY & NJ (RI) :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

[Danny D'Amico]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:21:49 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> We didn't want to pay the toll just to turn around as soon as
> possible, so I consulted the bridgekeeper. He told me to wait for a
> lull in traffic and make a U turn. I did.

They've let me, in a car, turn around at tolls.
I don't remember which tolls, but it has happened.

[Danny D'Amico]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:21:49 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> The roads never catch up with anything. It's frightening to think that
> if we doubled the freeways in Los Angeles we'd have half as much traffic
> which would STILL be a monumental traffic jam.

I have never really understood that, but it does seem to be the case
that every highway is jammed, here in the Silicon Valley, and elsewhere
I've been.

[sms]

On 1/3/2014 4:37 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:21:49 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> The roads never catch up with anything. It's frightening to think that
>> if we doubled the freeways in Los Angeles we'd have half as much traffic
>> which would STILL be a monumental traffic jam.
>
> I have never really understood that, but it does seem to be the case
> that every highway is jammed, here in the Silicon Valley, and elsewhere
> I've been.

The difference is that in L.A. they seem to be jammed at all hours of
the day or night. Don't think that you'll beat the traffic by commuting
at 4 a.m. versus 8 a.m..

[The Other Guy]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:15:52 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<***@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:54:44 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>>>1) Even two-digit interstates travel west:east
>>>2) Odd two-digit interstates travel south:north
>>>3) Even two-digit interstates increase south-to-north (10 to 90)
>>>4) Odd two-digit interstates increase west-to-east (5 to 95)
>>
>> Except I87/90, which is numbered from NYC.
>
>Again, I don't understand.
>
>I googled for I87,and found this map of it in NY:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_87
>
>From that, it fits perfectly the guidelines.
>
>a) It's an odd-numbered road, so it goes north:south
>b) It's a high number, so it's on the east coast instead of the west coast (which has the low odd numbers).
>
>So, i87 perfectly fits those two guidelines. Right?

EXCEPT, of course, it ISN'T really an 'interstate' highway,
as it is totally within NY State.




To reply by email, lose the Ks...


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[k***@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:43:18 -0800, The Other Guy
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:15:52 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
><***@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:54:44 -0500, krw wrote:
>>
>>>>1) Even two-digit interstates travel west:east
>>>>2) Odd two-digit interstates travel south:north
>>>>3) Even two-digit interstates increase south-to-north (10 to 90)
>>>>4) Odd two-digit interstates increase west-to-east (5 to 95)
>>>
>>> Except I87/90, which is numbered from NYC.
>>
>>Again, I don't understand.
>>
>>I googled for I87,and found this map of it in NY:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_87
>>
>>From that, it fits perfectly the guidelines.
>>
>>a) It's an odd-numbered road, so it goes north:south
>>b) It's a high number, so it's on the east coast instead of the west coast (which has the low odd numbers).
>>
>>So, i87 perfectly fits those two guidelines. Right?
>
>EXCEPT, of course, it ISN'T really an 'interstate' highway,
>as it is totally within NY State.

How dumb can you get? It is part of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway
system. It wasn't when built (Eisenhower was still President) but it
has been part of the system from its inception. Whether or not I87 is
entirely within NY is completely irrelevant. *Many* Interstate
highways are within a single state (often within a single city).

>To reply by email, lose the Ks...
>
>
>---
>This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>http://www.avast.com

[tlvp]

On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 19:31:53 -0500, ***@attt.bizz wrote:

> How dumb can you get? It is part of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway
> system. It wasn't when built (Eisenhower was still President) but it
> has been part of the system from its inception. Whether or not I87 is
> entirely within NY is completely irrelevant. *Many* Interstate
> highways are within a single state (often within a single city).

Oh, give us a break! The fact that a highway is part of the Interstate
Highway System doesn't make that highway an interstate highway -- after
all, only the Highway *System* is Interstate, not every highway in it.

(Sheesh!) Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[k***@attt.bizz]

On Mon, 6 Jan 2014 00:49:27 -0500, tlvp <***@att.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 19:31:53 -0500, ***@attt.bizz wrote:
>
>> How dumb can you get? It is part of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway
>> system. It wasn't when built (Eisenhower was still President) but it
>> has been part of the system from its inception. Whether or not I87 is
>> entirely within NY is completely irrelevant. *Many* Interstate
>> highways are within a single state (often within a single city).
>
>Oh, give us a break! The fact that a highway is part of the Interstate
>Highway System doesn't make that highway an interstate highway -- after
>all, only the Highway *System* is Interstate, not every highway in it.

Give you a break? You're simply *WRONG*, for all reasonable meanings
of "interstate highway". There is no break to be given to pedantic
assholes.

>(Sheesh!) Cheers, -- tlvp

Sheesh, indeed!

[tlvp]

On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:37:15 -0500, ***@attt.bizz wrote:

> Give you a break? You're simply *WRONG*,

Yeah. Right. Asshole. Indeed. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[k***@attt.bizz]

On Wed, 8 Jan 2014 19:40:25 -0500, tlvp <***@att.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:37:15 -0500, ***@attt.bizz wrote:
>
>> Give you a break? You're simply *WRONG*,
>
>Yeah. Right.

At least you understand your shortcomings.

> Asshole. Indeed. Cheers, -- tlvp

MOMMY! HE CALLED ME A BAD NAME! <what a fuckin' loser>

[Jack Strangio]

tlvp <***@att.net> writes:
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 19:31:53 -0500, ***@attt.bizz wrote:
>
> > How dumb can you get? It is part of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway
> > system. It wasn't when built (Eisenhower was still President) but it
> > has been part of the system from its inception. Whether or not I87 is
> > entirely within NY is completely irrelevant. *Many* Interstate
> > highways are within a single state (often within a single city).
>
> Oh, give us a break! The fact that a highway is part of the Interstate
> Highway System doesn't make that highway an interstate highway -- after
> all, only the Highway *System* is Interstate, not every highway in it.
>
> (Sheesh!) Cheers, -- tlvp
> --
> Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

Boys! Boys!

Stop this bickering!


So tell me, what's the deal with the Interstate in Hawaii?

The road doesn't cross the border, the numbers don't match the direction,
the size of the numbers don't match the location ('high numbers in east')
and it starts with a 'H' not an 'I'.

<grin>

Jack
--
"It's rather cold." she said bitchily.

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:54:44 -0500, krw wrote:

>>9) three-digit interstates connect to the two-digit equivalent
> (where the second two digits are the same as the two-digit
> interstate)

Thanks for the clarification.

You can see how this system works in this screenshot:
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7452/11618973963_0e31c520e0_o.png

Notice that 80 (east:west) and 5 (north:south) dominates
the interstates in the San Francisco Bay Area.

For connections to 80, we have 280 going from San Francisco
down to San Jose, and then magically changing into 680 to
go up the other side of the bay area, surrounding the bay
like a U-shaped roadway, with the tops connected to 80.

Likewise, on the inside of that U surrounding the bay, is
880, which shoots closer to the water, again connecting to
its two-digit namesake.

Meanwhile, further north, we have 580 and 780 connecting
to 80.

In a similar fashion, we have 205 connecting to 5 over by
Tracy.

[The Other Guy]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 07:29:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<***@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:54:44 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>>>9) three-digit interstates connect to the two-digit equivalent
>> (where the second two digits are the same as the two-digit
>> interstate)
>
>Thanks for the clarification.
>
>You can see how this system works in this screenshot:
> http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7452/11618973963_0e31c520e0_o.png
>
>Notice that 80 (east:west) and 5 (north:south) dominates
>the interstates in the San Francisco Bay Area.
>
>For connections to 80, we have 280 going from San Francisco
>down to San Jose, and then magically changing into 680 to
>go up the other side of the bay area, surrounding the bay
>like a U-shaped roadway, with the tops connected to 80.
>
>Likewise, on the inside of that U surrounding the bay, is
>880, which shoots closer to the water, again connecting to
>its two-digit namesake.
>
>Meanwhile, further north, we have 580 and 780 connecting
>to 80.
>
>In a similar fashion, we have 205 connecting to 5 over by
>Tracy.

The 3 digit interstates were originally known as 'loops'
and were intended to route traffic around congested city centers.

Loops 405 and 605 are in Los Angeles, and 805 is in San Diego.








To reply by email, lose the Ks...


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Danny D'Amico]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:25:19 -0500, krw wrote:

> The whole state of New Jersey runs off of exit numbers.

Actually, that only works for those in two of the three provinces
in New Jersey. The Jersey Shore (and Pine Barrens) go by the numbers
of the GSP; while the industrial corridor from NYC to Philly go by
Turnpike numbers. The accents get stronger the closer to Staten
Island you get for both of those roads.

The northwestern Hudson Highlands of New Jersey don't have accents
and they don't follow the mile markers on I-80, even though they're
just as clearly marked as on the toll roads. It's a different
culture altogether in so much as it's not a jersey culture at all
what with the bear and deer and other critters in the rural farmlands
and forests.

Anyway, I don't need GPS to tell me all that - I just need eyes
and ears! :)

[Juan Wei]

Danny D'Amico has written on 12/28/2013 3:44 AM:
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:25:19 -0500, krw wrote:
>
>> The whole state of New Jersey runs off of exit numbers.
>
> Actually, that only works for those in two of the three provinces
> in New Jersey.

New Jersey has counties, not provinces. :-)

> The Jersey Shore (and Pine Barrens) go by the numbers
> of the GSP; while the industrial corridor from NYC to Philly go by
> Turnpike numbers. The accents get stronger the closer to Staten
> Island you get for both of those roads.

Exit numbers on roads -- and I think that this true in general in the US
-- are either "mile markers" or simply consecutive numbers. For example,
the NJ Tpke uses consecutive numbers starting at 1 at the NJ-Delaware
line, and the GSP uses mile markers; each is "miles from Cape May".

[Danny D'Amico]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:08:32 -0500, Juan Wei wrote:

>> Actually, that only works for those in two of the three provinces
>> in New Jersey.
>
> New Jersey has counties, not provinces.

I wasn't talking politics; I was discussing culture.
Counties are meaningless when it comes to the cultural differences in NJ.

But, if you must discuss counties, rest assured that Sussex County (which is
in the northwestern province) is absolutely nothing like Bergen County (which
is in the city corridor), both of which are not even remotely similar in
culture to the familiar Atlantic County "Jersey Shore"...

Basically, the Joisey accent everyone is familiar with comes from the
northeastern provinces (do you know what a Benny or Shoobie is, from a
cultural standpoint?), and not from the northwestern province.

> Exit numbers on roads -- and I think that this true in general in the US
> -- are either "mile markers" or simply consecutive numbers. For example,
> the NJ Tpke uses consecutive numbers starting at 1 at the NJ-Delaware
> line, and the GSP uses mile markers; each is "miles from Cape May".

What is striking is the contrast, where, in California, until very
recently, at least where *I* have driven in California, mile markers
are really difficult to find (as compared to back east); and, more
to the point, exit numbers didn't even exist in California until very
recently, as SMS and other natives can attest to.

It's just different out here, where, it's harder to follow a GPS
which says "take exit 15" simply because there is usually no exit
15 marked - and - worse yet - you can't find nor read the mile markers.

If you've never driven out here, and if you're from the east, you
can't imagine how different it is. On the other hand, people are
so polite on the road you wanna kill them out here - but that's an
altogether different topic.

[Juan Wei]

Danny D'Amico has written on 12/28/2013 2:39 PM:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:08:32 -0500, Juan Wei wrote:
>
>>> Actually, that only works for those in two of the three provinces
>>> in New Jersey.
>>
>> New Jersey has counties, not provinces.
>
> I wasn't talking politics; I was discussing culture.
> Counties are meaningless when it comes to the cultural differences in NJ.
>
> But, if you must discuss counties, rest assured that Sussex County (which is
> in the northwestern province) is absolutely nothing like Bergen County (which
> is in the city corridor), both of which are not even remotely similar in
> culture to the familiar Atlantic County "Jersey Shore"...

Interesting! Where can I read more about NJ's "provinces"?

> Basically, the Joisey accent everyone is familiar with comes from the
> northeastern provinces (do you know what a Benny or Shoobie is, from a
> cultural standpoint?), and not from the northwestern province.

No.

I live in the west-central province, north of the Philadelphia province
and west of the Shore province.

[Danny D.]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:00:54 -0500, Juan Wei wrote:

> Where can I read more about NJ's "provinces"?

Here, for example:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/provinces.jpg

Note: I've read the geology of all 50 states, starting
with the roadside guides since I was a kid, well before
plate tectonics was firmly established. There are
clearly cultural and geographical provinces in all
states. Few are homogeneous.

NJ has basically three major provinces, where the
lay of the land determined much of the economic
development, and who settled where, and what they
did (e.g., farmers versus industrial water power).

However, most geologic and physiological maps would
break NJ into more than a half-dozen provinces.

Notice this animated GIF shows the similarity of
the provinces that I was speaking about with respect
to culture (only these are physiological - but
physiology shapes economics, transportation, & culture):
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/NJMaps.gif

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 06:16:26 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:00:54 -0500, Juan Wei wrote:
>
>> Where can I read more about NJ's "provinces"?
>
> Here, for example:
> http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/provinces.jpg

And here:
http://deathstar.rutgers.edu/advgeo/Kuo_Wetlands_files/provinces1.gif

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 06:17:59 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

>>> Where can I read more about NJ's "provinces"?
>> Here, for example:
>> http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/provinces.jpg
> And here:
> http://deathstar.rutgers.edu/advgeo/Kuo_Wetlands_files/provinces1.gif

Notice this map breaks NJ into 4 provinces, instead of 5:
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/enviroed/phyprov.gif

Of course, politically, NJ used to have a province:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/militia/GrantsNJTitle.jpg

But I was talking about the three cultural provinces,
which mirror the three physiological provinces of:
a) the northwest (morris and sussex county, for example)
b) the industrial corridor (bergen and passaic county, for example)
c) the shore and pine barrens (which is the bottom half of NJ)

You'll notice the provinces always follow the same general
pattern, whether they're marking the geology, hydrology,
geography, transportation system, etc.
http://nj.usgs.gov/projects/2454C2R/EcoFlow/images/image002.png

My whole point was that NJ has distinct cultural provinces,
of which I break the state into three, mirrored on all these
maps (usually as five provinces).

[Juan Wei]

Danny D. has written on 12/29/2013 1:16 AM:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:00:54 -0500, Juan Wei wrote:
>
>> Where can I read more about NJ's "provinces"?
>
> Here, for example:
> http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/geodata/provinces.jpg
>
> Note: I've read the geology of all 50 states, starting
> with the roadside guides since I was a kid, well before
> plate tectonics was firmly established. There are
> clearly cultural and geographical provinces in all
> states. Few are homogeneous.
>
> NJ has basically three major provinces, where the
> lay of the land determined much of the economic
> development, and who settled where, and what they
> did (e.g., farmers versus industrial water power).
>
> However, most geologic and physiological maps would
> break NJ into more than a half-dozen provinces.
>
> Notice this animated GIF shows the similarity of
> the provinces that I was speaking about with respect
> to culture (only these are physiological - but
> physiology shapes economics, transportation, & culture):
> http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/NJMaps.gif
>

Interesting! Thanks.

[The Real Bev]

On 12/28/2013 11:39 AM, Danny D'Amico wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:08:32 -0500, Juan Wei wrote:
>
>>> Actually, that only works for those in two of the three provinces
>>> in New Jersey.
>>
>> New Jersey has counties, not provinces.
>
> I wasn't talking politics; I was discussing culture.
> Counties are meaningless when it comes to the cultural differences in NJ.
>
> But, if you must discuss counties, rest assured that Sussex County (which is
> in the northwestern province) is absolutely nothing like Bergen County (which
> is in the city corridor), both of which are not even remotely similar in
> culture to the familiar Atlantic County "Jersey Shore"...
>
> Basically, the Joisey accent everyone is familiar with comes from the
> northeastern provinces (do you know what a Benny or Shoobie is, from a
> cultural standpoint?), and not from the northwestern province.
>
>> Exit numbers on roads -- and I think that this true in general in the US
>> -- are either "mile markers" or simply consecutive numbers. For example,
>> the NJ Tpke uses consecutive numbers starting at 1 at the NJ-Delaware
>> line, and the GSP uses mile markers; each is "miles from Cape May".
>
> What is striking is the contrast, where, in California, until very
> recently, at least where *I* have driven in California, mile markers
> are really difficult to find (as compared to back east);

White 4x4 posts a few feet high stuck in the ground with stenciled black
numbers, sometimes vertical just to make it more fun. We used to look
for them on vacation because my husband liked to calculate the mileage
we were getting as a function of steady speed over a given time
interval. He's a physicist. Bite me.

> and, more
> to the point, exit numbers didn't even exist in California until very
> recently, as SMS and other natives can attest to.

They're only adding them as signs are replaced, which isn't happening
all that fast. Cheap bastards don't even replace the lightbulbs on the
freeway signs -- you have to drive with your high beams if you want a
hope in hell of reading the sign in enough time to actually make the
turnoff.

> It's just different out here, where, it's harder to follow a GPS
> which says "take exit 15" simply because there is usually no exit
> 15 marked - and - worse yet - you can't find nor read the mile markers.
>
> If you've never driven out here, and if you're from the east, you
> can't imagine how different it is. On the other hand, people are
> so polite on the road you wanna kill them out here - but that's an
> altogether different topic.

Ah, you saw that guy too -- the jerkoff who STOPPED IN MOVING TRAFFIC ON
THE FREEWAY to let a guy in from on on-ramp. I mean 'moving' = 45-65
mph. There are a lot of people shose heads I wouldn't mind seeing blown
off with a shutgun, but he heads the list. I can just hear him asking
"Why are those idiots honking?"

Today I asked CoPilot to find Fry's Electronics in Burbank. It found a
lot of places called something like "electric electronics shop" and the
second one in the list was the correct one. Sort of like the prople
whose corpus colossum has been severed and they can only name an object
if they look at it with their right eye which goes to the left
brain...or vice versa...

--
Cheers, Bev
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"It doesn't get any easier - you just go faster."
-- Greg Lemond

[tlvp]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:13:44 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> Ah, you saw that guy too -- the jerkoff who STOPPED IN MOVING TRAFFIC ON
> THE FREEWAY to let a guy in from on on-ramp. I mean 'moving' = 45-65
> mph. There are a lot of people shose heads I wouldn't mind seeing blown
> off with a shutgun, but he heads the list. I can just hear him asking
> "Why are those idiots honking?"

Hoo, boy! Ages ago an LA native gave me a quick tutorial on survival in CA
traffic: "Pay no attention to the cars -- they're everywhere. What you want
to pay attention to is the spaces *between* the cars -- those move along at
in excess of 60 mph, they're not very big, and you need to find one of them
to merge into from the on-ramp. So don't be slow, and don't be shy :-) ."

Handy advice :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[DerbyDad03]

tlvp <***@att.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:13:44 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Ah, you saw that guy too -- the jerkoff who STOPPED IN MOVING TRAFFIC ON
>> THE FREEWAY to let a guy in from on on-ramp. I mean 'moving' = 45-65
>> mph. There are a lot of people shose heads I wouldn't mind seeing blown
>> off with a shutgun, but he heads the list. I can just hear him asking
>> "Why are those idiots honking?"
>
> Hoo, boy! Ages ago an LA native gave me a quick tutorial on survival in CA
> traffic: "Pay no attention to the cars -- they're everywhere. What you want
> to pay attention to is the spaces *between* the cars -- those move along at
> in excess of 60 mph, they're not very big, and you need to find one of them
> to merge into from the on-ramp. So don't be slow, and don't be shy :-) ."
>
> Handy advice :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp

What I hate are the drivers that try this maneuver:

You and a whole bunch of other vehicles are moving smoothly along in the
left lane, 10-15 MPH above the posted limit with a safe, yet small space
between each vehicle. Then you get the guy 6 cars back who moves into the
right lane, accelerates up to the slower car in the right lane and then
tries to squeeze into the space between you and the car in front of you.
This forces you to brake, cancel the cruise control, etc. I always watch
for that idiot and then casually close the gap so he can't get in.

I have no problem moving out of someone's way if they are driving faster
than me, but when all they are trying to do is pass a bunch of vehicles
when there is really no place to go, resulting in everybody else slowing
down to let him in, I take issue with that.

[Danny D'Amico]

On Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:13:44 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> White 4x4 posts a few feet high stuck in the ground with stenciled black
> numbers, sometimes vertical just to make it more fun.

I agree. Here in California, they make it as hard to read the mile
markers as possible. At least on the GSP or NJ TPK, it's easy to read them,
and, IIRC, they're every tenth of a mile (and painted on the bridges).

> They're only adding them as signs are replaced, which isn't happening
> all that fast.

I was wondering why some highways have started to have exit numbers
added while most have not (here in California).

> I can just hear him asking "Why are those idiots honking?"

Actually, I've seen folks here NOT HONK when someone five cars in
front wants to both pull onto a road and then make a left turn across
five lanes of traffic, so they wait for a few minutes for the traffic
to clear all five lanes, even though they could turn at any time into
the closest lane.

What absolutely amazes me is that all 5 cars in front of me DON'T HONK!

> Today I asked CoPilot to find Fry's Electronics in Burbank. It found a
> lot of places called something like "electric electronics shop" and the
> second one in the list was the correct one.

From testing all 20 free apps, the Alk CoPilot would be my favorite if
it wasn't actually free. I still use the freeware version, simply because
its POI is the best of the free offline mapping programs - but the free
version doesn't speak anything (and didn't speak road names even during
the trial period).

[Danny D'Amico]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:21:18 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:

> It's got annoyances, but I've used it for nearly 2 months and am pretty
> satisfied so far.

I'm buying one for a newly acquired stepkid (sort of), and will spend
about $200 and simply want the most bang for the buck.

I was leaning toward the Google Motorola G; but will compare these:
1. Moto G ($200)
2. Blu Dash 4.5 ($140)
3. LG Optimus F3 ($180)
4. LG Optimus L9 ($180)

[The Real Bev]

On 12/28/2013 12:57 AM, Danny D'Amico wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:21:18 -0800, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> It's got annoyances, but I've used it for nearly 2 months and am pretty
>> satisfied so far.
>
> I'm buying one for a newly acquired stepkid (sort of), and will spend
> about $200 and simply want the most bang for the buck.
>
> I was leaning toward the Google Motorola G; but will compare these:
> 1. Moto G ($200)
> 2. Blu Dash 4.5 ($140)

You may be able to get this at Staples using one of the discount coupons
they so generously provide via paper or email. I think the price has
dropped since I bought ours.

> 3. LG Optimus F3 ($180)
> 4. LG Optimus L9 ($180)

Husband just bought a Nexus 7 tablet (Asus) from Best Buy. It's
godawful lovely, and based on that I'd be willing to buy a Nexus 5 phone
if I were willing to spend $450. With that much internal memory, who
needs an external sd card?

Best Buy included a code for $25 at the google play store. I told them
I wanted it emailed to my public address because the guy said I could
use it on any of our accounts/android devices. Almost true -- I had to
log into the public account through the 'settings' on the phone before I
could download a paid app, but it worked. I'll set up the Nexus when
hubby decides if he wants to buy anything.

Thanks to Teresa on the google help line who suggested that, along with
looking at wallet.google.com to make sure the $25 was actually there.

So far, so good.

--
Cheers, Bev
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"We need to cut more slack for the stupid; after all, somebody has
to populate the lower part of the bell curve." -- Dennis (evil)