Skip to main content

Google walks

Start of the journey - BBC Wiltshire reception
Yesterday I made my regular appearance on BBC Wiltshire, but I was without a car, so experienced the joys of a bus in, and decided to walk back, a distance of just over four miles. What made it different, and really rather fun, was I did it with a walking sat nav.

It's not the first time I've used GPS on a phone for guidance while walking - in fact I've done it when finding my way across cities on foot for years - but what I've always done before is kept my phone in my hands, glancing at the map to see where I should go. This time, I plugged in a pair of earbuds, stuck the phone in my pocket and let the software do the talking. And it worked brilliantly.

Ms Google starts me off
One essential before getting started on this was to use Google Maps. More often than not I use Apple's mapping app - after its initial teething problems it works fine for most uses, including my strolls around cities. But for the kind of journey I was about to do it has a fatal flaw. It doesn't know about footpaths (certainly not footpaths in Swindon). Google does - and it makes a real difference to the walk.

So off I set with the slightly whiny, but assertive American woman telling me what to do in my ears. It was strangely intimate. When a car sat nav tells you what to do, it is clearly coming from that piece of kit on the dashboard, but when a voice in your ears tells you to turn left onto Regent Street, there really is quite a strong urge to respond and make it a conversation.

As always when I take these mid-range walks across Swindon it's a delight that's rather similar to the experience of travelling on a narrowboat on one of the UK's canals. There's that same mix of passing close by everything from industrial architecture to open fields at a pace where you can really look around and observe things, seeing the world from an angle you don't usually get to experience.

Ms Google did the job perfectly, though I did find it a little unnerving, only following voice commands. Three times I gave in and got the phone out to check the map (especially when she appeared to be directing me to cross the road and walk up a set of steps, as indeed she was), but each time what I thought she meant was correct. She even got a little cheeky.


Occasionally she would make apparently reassuring comments that were clearly intended to wind me up, as they would only be of use to a scout. I would be powering up a steep sloping bend and she would suddenly say 'Head north west.' Now, bearing in mind the phone was in my pocket, unless I had a compass in hand, or had one of those pairs of shoes (Wayfinders) with a compass in the heel I always wanted as a kid, but wasn't allowed because my mum (rightly) said the compass would be rubbish, this information was totally without value. Still, it broke the awkward silences.

All in all, a real success. I think Ms Google will be my companion on many more trips to come...
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more