FoxyTag

Assuming 60km/hr for city and 110km/hr for highway, I managed to come up with the following figures, 300m at 60km/hr is 18 seconds, and 600m at 110km/hr is about 19.6s, although this could be rounded up to 20 seconds.

I assume giving the driver time to respond was the point to profiles, I notice in the doc a difference in angles from the current heading but this could easily be solved in a similar manner too.

My question is do profiles really need to exist for this purpose at all?
A alternative solution would be to multiply the current speed in metres/second out by 20 seconds and have that be the warning distance.

Or did I over look something fundemental again?

You are already warned 15 seconds before the speed camera, according to your current speed. City profile allows you to see the tags more precisely. But wouldn't work if you drive too fast since an alarm can be launched only once the tag appears on the screen. The reduced angle (30°) avoids that your are disturbed by cameras that are on a parallel road while you are on a highway, but it is safer to use 45° in a city where you are warned earlier in case there is a speed camera in a turn. But if you do not like profiles, just do not use them.

Foxy wrote:You are already warned 15 seconds before the speed camera, according to your current speed. City profile allows you to see the tags more precisely. But wouldn't work if you drive too fast since an alarm can be launched only once the tag appears on the screen. The reduced angle (30°) avoids that your are disturbed by cameras that are on a parallel road while you are on a highway, but it is safer to use 45° in a city where you are warned earlier in case there is a speed camera in a turn. But if you do not like profiles, just do not use them.

I was also suggesting reducing the angle as well, although on Highways in Australia we don't have too many cameras on parallel roads.

But anyway, I would have thought this would have been easy to solve programmatically but I see now that other countries would be different and this would solve it by letting the person pick their preffered settings.

I think I came up with a reasonable solution to mathematically getting a bearing, I picked some arbitary numbers like 270 - speed in km/hr, with a minimum angle of 5 from the current heading which equates to 220km/hr is the maximum so to speak, with a total angle of 10 degrees.

If you are moving less than 70km/hr this multiplies the angle out by 1.5, at 5km/hr this means about 80 degrees, but is close to the 30 degrees for the 110-120km/hr and 45 degrees for 60km/hr

Code: Select all

halfangle = (int)(27 - (spd / 10.0));
if(halfangle < 5)
   halfangle = 5;
if(spd < 70)
   halfangle *= 1.5;


No idea if anyone else thinks this is a good idea or not, but just thought I'd put the idea out there

The idea is good, but not all the GPS react the same way with the heading's precision (especially when entering or exiting a tunnel), so wer prefered to find the values experimentaly.

Foxy wrote:The idea is good, but not all the GPS react the same way with the heading's precision (especially when entering or exiting a tunnel), so wer prefered to find the values experimentaly.

True, but I wonder how much A-GPS would be able to help here?

Also I'm sort of anxious to get my hands on a phone with an acelerometer to see how useful that is in dealing with slow motion stuff, like geocaching, but I wonder how useful it would be for tunnels too?