The Real Bev wrote on Tue, 25 Jun 2024 08:20:29 -0700 :
Q: When you're tracking someone else, does "snapping to objects" apply?
A: ???
Don't know. If it's a setting I never saw it. If it snaps that's OK
because we're pretty much ALWAYS on major roads.
I've been using GPS in vehicles since they were first sold to consumers,
and in those days, the location did not snap to the roads.
Note that those GPS apps were on the Windows PC, where the tracking did not correspond to roads.
Hence, you often found yourself appear to be driving in a lake or on the
side of the road or in water outside a bridge, etc., before they invented
the snapping they do today.
I think your problem, based on what I know and what you said, could be
purely due to the lack of snapping in the computer app that you're using -
but I'm just trying to help you so I'm only informing you that it's a
distinct possibility.
I use GPS mostly in two situations, where I think I know where "The Real
Bev" is having difficulties so allow me to try to patiently explain.
When "The Real Bev" is driving on a road, she is perhaps not aware that the >> blue location dot is "snapping" to "objects" (usually roads) on that map.
So, while driving, even at breakneck speeds around hairpin turns (which,
I'm sure she doesn't do - but you get the point), the blue location dot
serenely follows the roads without much of a deviation off the beaten path. >>
But that's due to snapping.
Not GPS.
Seems irrelevant to the problem at hand.
It's relevant because without snapping, the GPS track bounces all over,
which is what you're describing is happening.
My suggestion is to check if the app you're using to track is not snapping.
Now, I hike. I'm in the Santa Cruz Mountains which are rugged (hell, a guy >> just this weekend was lost for ten days and he didn't run into a soul).
<https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2024/06/21/boulder-creek-man-rescued-from-remote-canyon-after-nine-day-search/>
If he had enough water but no food I would suspect that hyponatremia
would have occurred. Apparently not. A former SC resident said that if
he'd just kept walking downhill he would have come to a road.
Technically, 3000KCal is a pound, and people burn about half that a day,
but let's make the math simple by saying he was doing strenuou hiking so
we'll assume he burned 3000KCal per day, which in 10 days would be 30
pounds, which, coincidentally, is exactly how much weight they said he
lost.
As a side note, people who eat three square meals a day think it's required mostly because of advertising like "Breakfast is the most important meal of
the day" (which is complete bullshit).
If a person is 100 pounds overweight, at 3000 KCal per pound, and assuming
a normal 1500 KCal burned per day, they could theoretically go for 200 days without eating and, other than the nutritional issues (which, I am well
aware, are the real problem), they would not be starving to death.
People don't realize humans (and most mammals) are designed to go long
periods without food. But this is an aside...
When hiking in rugged backcountry, with just GPS, the track I lay down
bounces widely all over the place (just as The Real Bev is insinuating).
(Note that with back-country hiking, Wi-Fi precision scanning wouldn't do
much good, nor would cellular tower triangulation - given the remoteness.) >>
Having explained that The Real Bev may not be aware of "snapping to
objects", I must say I don't track other people on my own maps.
This is a family thing.
Oh. Don't get me wrong. I was not chastising you. I was simply remarking
that I don't have experience with 2nd-party tracking of the 1st party.
My point was only that the 2nd-party tracking app might not be smart enough
to track to roads. That's all.
So I ask the group at large this basic question related to her question:
Q: When you're tracking someone else, does "snapping to objects" apply?
I suspect that lack of snapping "might" be the problem The Real Bev is indicating - but it's only my best guess based on the data I have at hand.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)