I went bushwacking yesterday, after carefully planning an approximate
route using Google Satellite view.

But on the ground, the image on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro was much
darker, so that I coudln't see details to plan which way to go. It all
looked like the top of one big tree, even though I'd looked at the area
the night before.

Is there a way to make the Google maps screen brighter, or something?

On 23/10/2021 05.04, micky wrote:
> I went bushwacking yesterday, after carefully planning an approximate
> route using Google Satellite view.
>
> But on the ground, the image on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro was much
> darker, so that I coudln't see details to plan which way to go. It all
> looked like the top of one big tree, even though I'd looked at the area
> the night before.
>
> Is there a way to make the Google maps screen brighter, or something?

Were you in the sun?

Possibly it is not google maps itself, but the phone. I have to set the
brightness all the way up when I'm out with no shades.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

> I went bushwacking yesterday, after carefully planning an approximate
> route using Google Satellite view.
>
> But on the ground, the image on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro was much
> darker, so that I coudln't see details to plan which way to go. It all
> looked like the top of one big tree, even though I'd looked at the area
> the night before.
>
> Is there a way to make the Google maps screen brighter, or something?

I find difficult to believe how difficult streets are to see. There is very
little contrast, for some strange reason. You can sort of compensate by
toggling features, but that shouldn't be necessary.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 23:04:23 -0400
micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

> I went bushwacking yesterday, after carefully planning an approximate
> route using Google Satellite view.
>
> But on the ground, the image on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro was much
> darker, so that I coudln't see details to plan which way to go. It all
> looked like the top of one big tree, even though I'd looked at the area
> the night before.
>
> Is there a way to make the Google maps screen brighter, or something?

I started complaing about the inadequate visibility of roads on google maps years ago and that was on my desktop computer!

The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.

--
Mint 20.2, kernel 5.4.0-88-generic, Cinnamon 5.0.5
running on an AMD Phenom II X4 Black edition processor with 16GB of DRAM.

On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 23:04:23 -0400 micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I went bushwacking yesterday, after carefully planning an
>> approximate route using Google Satellite view.
>>
>> But on the ground, the image on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro was
>> much darker, so that I coudln't see details to plan which way to
>> go. It all looked like the top of one big tree, even though I'd
>> looked at the area the night before.
>>
>> Is there a way to make the Google maps screen brighter, or
>> something?

I don't see how anyone can see their phone's screen in bright sunlight.
I take photos by pointing in the general direction and figure I can
crop it to what I want :-(

> I started complaing about the inadequate visibility of roads on
> google maps years ago and that was on my desktop computer!
>
> The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.

I think you may be right. It's really hard to find small roads out in
"the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious. Maybe even TRAILS.

Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
understand how people can get along without desktops...

--
Cheers, Bev
Exercising would be so much more rewarding if calories
screamed while you burned them.

Am 24.10.21 um 05:30 schrieb The Real Bev:
> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
> understand how people can get along without desktops...

I couldn't agree more!
To do serious stuff, desktop or laptop computers are the devices of
choice. Even tablets are not satifactory.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 23 Oct 2021 20:30:03 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 23:04:23 -0400 micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I went bushwacking yesterday, after carefully planning an
>>> approximate route using Google Satellite view.
>>>
>>> But on the ground, the image on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro was
>>> much darker, so that I coudln't see details to plan which way to
>>> go. It all looked like the top of one big tree, even though I'd
>>> looked at the area the night before.
>>>
>>> Is there a way to make the Google maps screen brighter, or
>>> something?

Carlos nailed this. I feel stupid again. I turned down the brightness
to about 85% to save battery and again I forgot that it wasn't maximum
and forgot to turn it up.

Well, even without changing the brightness, I can see much more detail,
here in my bedroom with medium light from the ceiling and darkness
outside.

We'll see on the next sunny day if it's bright enough outside. Tomorrow
is supposed to be aprtly cloudy and tomorrow's path should be easier to
follow anyhow.

(The one 3 days ago was full of vines and logs and streams but I was
making slow progress, even made it under the railroad tracks, until I
got to the expressway. Three 10 foot culverts under it for the stream
to go through. The left was almost dry, with no water coming in, but
there was also no light at the end. Walked in about 80 feet and saw a
little dim light (on a bright sunny day), but from some hole in the top
at the end. The middle culvert had 6" of water flowing and I'd
probably have to walk through a foot of water to get there. So I turned
around. An hour 45 minutes to go 2/3rds of a mile. :-)

The xway is 5, 3, and then 1 lane, at least 100 feet until it opens up.
I may try again next year when it's warmer out and I'm wearing old shoes
and I can just get my feet wet. This time I had 3 more miles to go and
didn't want to get blisters.
>
>I don't see how anyone can see their phone's screen in bright sunlight.

Definitely a problem. I also have a small camera, and you can't get
small camemras with viewfinders, only screens. I found online a couple
devices to shade the screen. One screws into the threads in the bottom
of most cameras and has a squarish black plastic funnel that attaches
magnetically to the bracket that keeps all the sun off the screen.
Another has wings on the side and on top, that fold up or out.

I haven't used the second because it sticks on and I doubt it will stick
on well twice, if I remove it to use the first device.

And I found like you, I just point the camera where I think the subject
is, and that has worked quite well. I think every picture was good.

But I take the accesories when I travel and keep them in the back of the
car.

The phone is also a problem because I have a convertible. In the sumer
when the sun is bright, especially if it's behind the car, it's hard to
impossible to see the map on the car radio when the top is down or the
sun shines in the rear window. And it's worse with the phone. I keep it
attached to the AC vent most of the time but I also have a bracket that
attaches to the hump so the phone is out of the sun. that should work
but the bracket falls off because the plastic hump has crinkle,
wrinkles, and I haven't used it like I should.

> I take photos by pointing in the general direction and figure I can
>crop it to what I want :-(
>
>> I started complaing about the inadequate visibility of roads on
>> google maps years ago and that was on my desktop computer!
>>
>> The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.
>
>I think you may be right. It's really hard to find small roads out in
>"the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
>parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious. Maybe even TRAILS.

For trails, I highly recommend Alltrails.com . It seems to have 1000's
of trails, maybe hundreds in Maryland alone.

Spain too, https://www.alltrails.com/spain
AllTrails has 15,080 great hiking trails, mountain biking trails, trail
running trails and more, with hand-curated trail maps and driving
directions as well as detailed reviews and photos from hikers, campers,
and nature lovers like you. Whether you're looking for the best trails
in Parque Nacional del Teide or Parque Nacional de Los Picos de Europa
or for trails in Asturias, Lleida or Granada - we've got you covered....
There are 7,739 moderate trails in Spain ranging from 0.6 to 2,239.5
miles and from 0 to 12,109 feet above sea level......

I guess if data is available on the trail, it's free there too.

If you have live data, you can look at a map of a park etc. and it shows
where on the trail you are! Just like Google maps but much more
detailed. A good way to not get lost. And I forgot my compass, but
you can tell which way you are going by watching your blue dot move.

If you don't have live data in the woods, for example, you can join for
iirc 30 or 40 a year and then you can download the maps to your phone.
I dont' do that much hiking and I'm hoping I'll be able to download
every trail area I want -- there are only about 10 or 20, and that the
maps will still work fully after my membership expires. The FAQ seemed
to ignore that question

It is a little confusing. I usually use the PC and when I found a trail
area I was interested in, I could download it, but then it only went to
the PC (Unlike playstore which sends it to your phone even if you are on
a PC). I had to copy the map urls to an email and email them to my
phone and then open the url and download the maps.

Or you could just search, on the phone, on the name of the trail, but
one time that didn't work. Even though I had found it on the PC and
knew the name, I didn't find it via the phone. Who knows, but do your
downloading the night before, or earlier.

Also I'm hoping if I move to a new phone everything will still work.

>Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>understand how people can get along without desktops...

Me neither. If only that you can keep position in 20 windows and go
from one to another in one step with Alt-tab.

In article <sl2k03$3ob$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I don't see how anyone can see their phone's screen in bright sunlight.

make the display brighter. most phones do that automatically.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
[...]

> > The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.
>
> I think you may be right. It's really hard to find small roads out in
> "the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
> parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious. Maybe even TRAILS.
>
> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
> understand how people can get along without desktops...

That's why <insert_diety> invented OsmAnd, didn't She!?

Ever since I use OsmAnd(+), I've set 'Map style' to 'Touring view',
which gives "high contrast and maximum detail".

It's essential for small(er) roads, tracks, trails, etc., but it's
perfectly fine for normal use on bigger roads as well.

"Touring view, don't leave home without it!"

On 10/24/2021 04:55 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
> [...]
>
>> > The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.
>>
>> I think you may be right. It's really hard to find small roads out in
>> "the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
>> parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious. Maybe even TRAILS.
>>
>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>
> That's why <insert_diety> invented OsmAnd, didn't She!?
>
> Ever since I use OsmAnd(+), I've set 'Map style' to 'Touring view',
> which gives "high contrast and maximum detail".

I used to like that because it would save a track and was easy to use.
It was always battery-hungry, unfortunately. With updates it became
more and more complicated to find what I wanted so I finally deleted it
and CoPilot -- which didn't save tracks, but had become more complex.

I did like the OSMand map, though. Maybe if I just install it without
saving desired destinations and just use it to LOOK at he maps it will
behave better...

> It's essential for small(er) roads, tracks, trails, etc., but it's
> perfectly fine for normal use on bigger roads as well.
>
> "Touring view, don't leave home without it!"

Hrm. It already had my saved destinations from last time, so there was
clearly a hidden file that wasn't deleted when I got rid of it before.
It didn't save the maps, though, so I'm downloading 1.5GB worth. I'll
still have 48GB empty!

--
Cheers, Bev
Just as you cannot explain snow to a summer insect, so also you cannot
explain ski resorts to someone who walks uphill willingly. --ErikL

On 10/23/2021 11:27 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 24.10.21 um 05:30 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>
>
> I couldn't agree more!

I disagree with "using it for anything else on a phone is less than
optimum." As a single example, I read Kindle books on my phone, and
especially since I often read in bed or while waiting in a doctors
office, using a desktop for that would be very impractical.

However I largely agree with "I don't understand how people can get
along without desktops," although I think it's something of an
overstatement. I think that for the great majority of people, a desktop
is a much better choice than a laptop, but I know many people who get
along fine with a laptop.

> To do serious stuff, desktop or laptop computers are the devices of
> choice. Even tablets are not satifactory.

What is satisfactory depends on what the serious stuff is (and we don't
all have the same definition of "serious").

As far as I'm concerned,

A desktop can do much more serious stuff than

a laptop, which can do more serious stuff than

a tablet, which can do more serious stuff than

a smart phone.

They are all computers and they can all do *some* serious stuff, just
not the same amounts or all the same things

Regarding "devices of choice," as far as I'm concerned a desktop is
almost always a far better choice than a laptop for almost everyone. But
which I choose and for any particular use and where I am. For example,
when I'm traveling, a smart phone is my device of choice.

By the way, I'm well aware that there are many people these days who
prefer a laptop to a desktop. Some of those people have a good reason
for that preference, but in my opinion, it's a terrible choice for the
great majority.

--
Ken

On 24/10/2021 09.27, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on Sat, 23 Oct 2021 20:30:03 -0700, The Real Bev
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 23:04:23 -0400 micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I went bushwacking yesterday, after carefully planning an
>>>> approximate route using Google Satellite view.
>>>>
>>>> But on the ground, the image on my Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro was
>>>> much darker, so that I coudln't see details to plan which way to
>>>> go. It all looked like the top of one big tree, even though I'd
>>>> looked at the area the night before.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to make the Google maps screen brighter, or
>>>> something?
>
> Carlos nailed this. I feel stupid again. I turned down the brightness
> to about 85% to save battery and again I forgot that it wasn't maximum
> and forgot to turn it up.

Don't feel bad. I nailed it because it has happened to me ;-)

And no, I disabled the auto adjustments because when I'm inside my home
the screen brightness is constantly changing, there may be something
in my LED/CFL lights it doesn't like. Specially bad in bed. Go figure.

....

>>> I started complaing about the inadequate visibility of roads on
>>> google maps years ago and that was on my desktop computer!
>>>
>>> The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.
>>
>> I think you may be right. It's really hard to find small roads out in
>> "the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
>> parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious. Maybe even TRAILS.
>
> For trails, I highly recommend Alltrails.com . It seems to have 1000's
> of trails, maybe hundreds in Maryland alone.
>
> Spain too, https://www.alltrails.com/spain
> AllTrails has 15,080 great hiking trails, mountain biking trails, trail
> running trails and more, with hand-curated trail maps and driving
> directions as well as detailed reviews and photos from hikers, campers,
> and nature lovers like you. Whether you're looking for the best trails
> in Parque Nacional del Teide or Parque Nacional de Los Picos de Europa
> or for trails in Asturias, Lleida or Granada - we've got you covered....
> There are 7,739 moderate trails in Spain ranging from 0.6 to 2,239.5
> miles and from 0 to 12,109 feet above sea level......

I'll have to try :-)

Normally I use OsmAnd+

> I guess if data is available on the trail, it's free there too.
>
>
> If you have live data, you can look at a map of a park etc. and it shows
> where on the trail you are! Just like Google maps but much more
> detailed. A good way to not get lost. And I forgot my compass, but
> you can tell which way you are going by watching your blue dot move.
>
> If you don't have live data in the woods, for example, you can join for
> iirc 30 or 40 a year and then you can download the maps to your phone.
> I dont' do that much hiking and I'm hoping I'll be able to download
> every trail area I want -- there are only about 10 or 20, and that the
> maps will still work fully after my membership expires. The FAQ seemed
> to ignore that question

I paid for some additions to OsmAnd+. I have the maps stored in the mem
card, and updates are free so far (but are long to download).

I don't know if it has "trails", I have not tried.

> It is a little confusing. I usually use the PC and when I found a trail
> area I was interested in, I could download it, but then it only went to
> the PC (Unlike playstore which sends it to your phone even if you are on
> a PC). I had to copy the map urls to an email and email them to my
> phone and then open the url and download the maps.
>
> Or you could just search, on the phone, on the name of the trail, but
> one time that didn't work. Even though I had found it on the PC and
> knew the name, I didn't find it via the phone. Who knows, but do your
> downloading the night before, or earlier.

:-)

> Also I'm hoping if I move to a new phone everything will still work.
>
>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>
> Me neither. If only that you can keep position in 20 windows and go
> from one to another in one step with Alt-tab.

One possibility for maps would be a e-paper-ink device, like ebooks, but
with a GPS. Can be read in full sun light, battery may last a month, but
B/W only. There is an experimental model somewhere that has limited colour.

For maps, they would have to redesign the software for slow screen
refresh. Forget real time following.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

"Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:sl3ojs.d5k.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net...
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
> [...]
>
>> > The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.
>>
>> I think you may be right. It's really hard to find small roads out in
>> "the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
>> parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious. Maybe even TRAILS.
>>
>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>
> That's why <insert_diety> invented OsmAnd, didn't She!?
>
> Ever since I use OsmAnd(+), I've set 'Map style' to 'Touring view',
> which gives "high contrast and maximum detail".
>
> It's essential for small(er) roads, tracks, trails, etc., but it's
> perfectly fine for normal use on bigger roads as well.
>
> "Touring view, don't leave home without it!"

Google Maps are a very poor imitation of a "real" map - in the UK, an
Ordnance Survey map - in the level of detail they show for giving context to
a map with a "you are here" arrow, a road and just a featureless green
background.

On 24/10/2021 18.30, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/24/2021 04:55 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> > The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.
>>>
>>> I think you may be right.  It's really hard to find small roads out in
>>> "the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
>>> parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious.  Maybe even TRAILS.
>>>
>>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum.  I don't
>>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>>
>>    That's why <insert_diety> invented OsmAnd, didn't She!?
>>
>>    Ever since I use OsmAnd(+), I've set 'Map style' to 'Touring view',
>> which gives "high contrast and maximum detail".
>
> I used to like that because it would save a track and was easy to use.
> It was always battery-hungry, unfortunately.  With updates it became
> more and more complicated to find what I wanted so I finally deleted it
> and CoPilot -- which didn't save tracks, but had become more complex.
>
> I did like the OSMand map, though.  Maybe if I just install it without
> saving desired destinations and just use it to LOOK at he maps it will
> behave better...

It is a bit complicated interface, but I use it that way, no
destination, just view. Took me days to find how to disable distance and
direction of target at the top, but finally I got it. Next time I will
forget what I did and fight it again.

>>    It's essential for small(er) roads, tracks, trails, etc., but it's
>> perfectly fine for normal use on bigger roads as well.
>>
>>    "Touring view, don't leave home without it!"
>
> Hrm.  It already had my saved destinations from last time, so there was
> clearly a hidden file that wasn't deleted when I got rid of it before.
> It didn't save the maps, though, so I'm downloading 1.5GB worth.  I'll
> still have 48GB empty!
>

Heh.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In comp.mobile.android, on 24 Oct 2021 11:55:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
>[...]
>
>> > The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.
>>
>> I think you may be right. It's really hard to find small roads out in
>> "the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
>> parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious. Maybe even TRAILS.
>>
>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>
> That's why <insert_diety> invented OsmAnd, didn't She!?
>
> Ever since I use OsmAnd(+), I've set 'Map style' to 'Touring view',
>which gives "high contrast and maximum detail".

I see that more people have reviewed Osmand than Plus. Is that only
because it came out first, or is it better in some way?

If I have both, which should I use? Does plus have everything non-plus
has?

I was goign to ask about the Contour lline plugin, but apparently I
already have that installed and I used it yesterday.

Oh, the other trwo are installed also it says, and it says I used them
yesterday, even though I didn't use my phone outside my house
yesterday!! and I didn't use Alltrails yesterday either if that has
anything to do with it. .

I can't find either on my phone. So I went to install plus and it says
I paid for it already. I dont' remember that and the icon wasn't on the
previous phone either. But now I installed it and there is a new icon,
and the map works.

It doesn't give sat. view however or any trails where I plan to walk, so
it won't help me today,but I'm glad I have it. Thanks.

Hmm. It seems contour lines only show up at a set zoom level. I lowered
the number to 11, but I still don't see them. But today I'm following a
stream and I don't think there is anything like the Cumberland Gap or
the Delaware Water Gap, where only the river cuts through a mountain.
Unlike Crownsvile, I think this is pretty flat.

It has dotted black lines which I figure are paths or trails but it has
a dotted red line and I don't know what that means.

It also shows two branches of a stream, that join back up again, shows
one bigger than the other -- that's very good to know, and will be
useful today -- while Google shows them as the same. It also has
arrows showing which way a stream is running. That could be helpful on
some other occasion.

My plan today is to start upstream and walk downhill. Should be easier.

> It's essential for small(er) roads, tracks, trails, etc., but it's
>perfectly fine for normal use on bigger roads as well.
>
> "Touring view, don't leave home without it!"

On 25/10/2021 00.07, micky wrote:
> In comp.mobile.android, on 24 Oct 2021 11:55:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>> The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.
>>>
>>> I think you may be right. It's really hard to find small roads out in
>>> "the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
>>> parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious. Maybe even TRAILS.
>>>
>>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>>
>> That's why <insert_diety> invented OsmAnd, didn't She!?
>>
>> Ever since I use OsmAnd(+), I've set 'Map style' to 'Touring view',
>> which gives "high contrast and maximum detail".
>
> I see that more people have reviewed Osmand than Plus. Is that only
> because it came out first, or is it better in some way?

The Plus is the paid version, and it allows unlimited map downloads, I
understand. Otherwise it is not different.

Mind, not what it calls "unlimited downloads" in the app, as soon as
they are available. You have to tap on the map to download and update
each one, or hit update all.

>
> If I have both, which should I use? Does plus have everything non-plus
> has?

The plus.

> I was goign to ask about the Contour lline plugin, but apparently I
> already have that installed and I used it yesterday.

I have that one, yes.

>
> Oh, the other trwo are installed also it says, and it says I used them
> yesterday, even though I didn't use my phone outside my house
> yesterday!! and I didn't use Alltrails yesterday either if that has
> anything to do with it. .
>
> I can't find either on my phone. So I went to install plus and it says
> I paid for it already. I dont' remember that and the icon wasn't on the
> previous phone either. But now I installed it and there is a new icon,
> and the map works.
>
> It doesn't give sat. view however or any trails where I plan to walk, so
> it won't help me today,but I'm glad I have it. Thanks.

You have to activate each thing you want to see... I'm updating now, I
can't see that screen, and besides, mine is translated to Spanish so it
will not be the same.

Ok, update finished. On the three lines button bottom left corner,
select "configure map". Several type of trails are there. And something
called "traces" which I don't know what they are. Ah, recordings you made.

Also level curves, terrain (shadow) and photos (mapillary).

A top bar has some icons: the globe, a car, bicycle, man, bus. The first
one, the globe, is "view map mode".

>
>
> Hmm. It seems contour lines only show up at a set zoom level. I lowered
> the number to 11, but I still don't see them. But today I'm following a
> stream and I don't think there is anything like the Cumberland Gap or
> the Delaware Water Gap, where only the river cuts through a mountain.
> Unlike Crownsvile, I think this is pretty flat.

You also need to download the contour lines map overlay for the area,
whatever they call it in English (mine is in Spanish).

>
>
> It has dotted black lines which I figure are paths or trails but it has
> a dotted red line and I don't know what that means.

maybe zooming out you figure where it goes and what it is.

>
> It also shows two branches of a stream, that join back up again, shows
> one bigger than the other -- that's very good to know, and will be
> useful today -- while Google shows them as the same. It also has
> arrows showing which way a stream is running. That could be helpful on
> some other occasion.
>
> My plan today is to start upstream and walk downhill. Should be easier.
>
>
>> It's essential for small(er) roads, tracks, trails, etc., but it's
>> perfectly fine for normal use on bigger roads as well.
>>
>> "Touring view, don't leave home without it!"
>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 10/24/2021 09:30 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/24/2021 04:55 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/23/2021 03:00 PM, pinnerite wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> > The thing is that I believe it was better at the beginning.
>>>
>>> I think you may be right. It's really hard to find small roads out in
>>> "the hinterlands", and I think that area boundaries (like national
>>> parks), state lines etc. used to be obvious. Maybe even TRAILS.
>>>
>>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>>
>> That's why <insert_diety> invented OsmAnd, didn't She!?
>>
>> Ever since I use OsmAnd(+), I've set 'Map style' to 'Touring view',
>> which gives "high contrast and maximum detail".
>
> I used to like that because it would save a track and was easy to use.
> It was always battery-hungry, unfortunately. With updates it became
> more and more complicated to find what I wanted so I finally deleted it
> and CoPilot -- which didn't save tracks, but had become more complex.
>
> I did like the OSMand map, though. Maybe if I just install it without
> saving desired destinations and just use it to LOOK at he maps it will
> behave better...
>
>> It's essential for small(er) roads, tracks, trails, etc., but it's
>> perfectly fine for normal use on bigger roads as well.
>>
>> "Touring view, don't leave home without it!"
>
> Hrm. It already had my saved destinations from last time, so there was
> clearly a hidden file that wasn't deleted when I got rid of it before.
> It didn't save the maps, though, so I'm downloading 1.5GB worth. I'll
> still have 48GB empty!

I tried to get it to record a track. It seems to be unable to stop, and
has apparently logged over 7 thousand miles, although I can't find the
actual track. The 'help' doesn't.

So far the easiest save-a-track app is Ski Tracks. It actually makes
sense when you're on a ski slope, but if you're not on a ski slope it
just shows a blank screen with a path line. It does save a .gpx track
which you can feed into google earth (edit out the track name, which
provides no useful information and just clutters up the GE display)and
works nicely, even in bright sunlight -- but better if you can pull your
head and phone inside your jacket along with your reading glasses.

I paid 99 cents for it. It may be free now. I just added to my review...

--
Cheers, Bev
"You know that I could go on the Internet right now under my
alternate screen name, "CherryXXX69," and get complete strangers to
email me a picture of their scrotum. I tell you, this country gave
the finger to privacy a long time ago." -- Bill Maher

On 10/24/2021 10:22 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 10/23/2021 11:27 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 24.10.21 um 05:30 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>>
>> I couldn't agree more!
>
> I disagree with "using it for anything else on a phone is less than
> optimum." As a single example, I read Kindle books on my phone, and
> especially since I often read in bed or while waiting in a doctors
> office, using a desktop for that would be very impractical.
>
> However I largely agree with "I don't understand how people can get
> along without desktops," although I think it's something of an
> overstatement. I think that for the great majority of people, a desktop
> is a much better choice than a laptop, but I know many people who get
> along fine with a laptop.

Perhaps it's different for people with tiny monkey fingers are really
good hand-eye coordination, but I find any sort of "typing" of more than
a few words is difficult and highly error-prone. The speech recognition
is really good, though.

>> To do serious stuff, desktop or laptop computers are the devices of
>> choice. Even tablets are not satifactory.

Any serious writing, like here, is impossible. I didn't even put a
newsreader on my phone, there's no point in reading if I can't write
more than +1 or equivalent :-(

In its favor, the ai.type keyboard makes it less unpleasant than any of
the defaults I've seen. Its word guesses are generally REALLY good (tap
to choose, I wouldn't dream of using any auto-spell EVER) and if you
somehow manage to offset your fingers it figures out what you REALLY
wanted to type. Plus it's hugely configurable and you can make it a lot
of pretty colors.

> What is satisfactory depends on what the serious stuff is (and we don't
> all have the same definition of "serious").

It might well be that the difficulty of using a tiny virtual keyboard is
responsible for most of the crap on twitter as well as the general
dumbing down of the population as a whole. Discuss...

> As far as I'm concerned,
>
> A desktop can do much more serious stuff than
>
> a laptop, which can do more serious stuff than
>
> a tablet, which can do more serious stuff than
>
> a smart phone.
>
> They are all computers and they can all do *some* serious stuff, just
> not the same amounts or all the same things
>
> Regarding "devices of choice," as far as I'm concerned a desktop is
> almost always a far better choice than a laptop for almost everyone. But
> which I choose and for any particular use and where I am. For example,
> when I'm traveling, a smart phone is my device of choice.
>
> By the way, I'm well aware that there are many people these days who
> prefer a laptop to a desktop. Some of those people have a good reason
> for that preference, but in my opinion, it's a terrible choice for the
> great majority.

Yes. I have a decent laptop with a touchscreen and Win10 which seems
kind of nice, but if I have to install HR Block or TurboTax on it rather
than my ancient Win7 machine I'm not going to be happy.

--
Cheers, Bev
"You know that I could go on the Internet right now under my
alternate screen name, "CherryXXX69," and get complete strangers to
email me a picture of their scrotum. I tell you, this country gave
the finger to privacy a long time ago." -- Bill Maher

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

| > Is there a way to make the Google maps screen brighter, or something?
| | Were you in the sun?
| | Possibly it is not google maps itself, but the phone. I have to set the
| brightness all the way up when I'm out with no shades.
|

I don't know if this is any help, but I know Google
maps does have options for lightness and gamma.
However, I've never used their website so I don't
know about whether they provide those settings
in their webpage somehow. What I do know is
the REST API, which calls Google with a URL. If
you have access to a map URL you can add either/both
of the following to control those values:

"&style=feature:all%7Clightness:" & [lightness-string-value] &
"%7Cvisibility:on"

(values -100 to 100)

"&style=feature:all%7Cgamma:" & [gamma-string-value] & "%7Cvisibility:on"

(I think normal is 1.0 and can be increased or decreased
by increments of .01)

Am 24.10.21 um 19:22 schrieb Ken Blake:
> As far as I'm concerned,
>
> A desktop can do much more serious stuff than
>
> a laptop, which can do more serious stuff than
>
> a tablet, which can do more serious stuff than
>
> a smart phone.

I tend to agree except I see no difference between a laptop and a
desktop. Au contraire because the serious stuff can be done everywhere
with a laptop which is certainly not possible with a desktop. All the
components of a desktop can be added to a laptop if needed.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

In comp.mobile.android, on Sun, 24 Oct 2021 10:22:27 -0700, Ken Blake
<ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:

>
>
>Regarding "devices of choice," as far as I'm concerned a desktop is
>almost always a far better choice than a laptop for almost everyone. But
>which I choose and for any particular use and where I am. For example,
>when I'm traveling, a smart phone is my device of choice.
>
>By the way, I'm well aware that there are many people these days who
>prefer a laptop to a desktop. Some of those people have a good reason
>for that preference, but in my opinion, it's a terrible choice for the
>great majority.

Yes, it's surprising that the settle for a laptop. MOst have the money
and space for a desktop, whiile keeping their laptop for when they go on
a picnic and want to watch a football game while they are there.

I have both and I take a phone and my laptop on trips, and a full-size
usb keyboard, and a mouse, and external USB speakers that are little
bigger than a pack of cigarettes but give much better and louder sound
than the laptop does. My setup in a motel is 97% as good as at home,
except the screen is smaller.

I am however thinknig I don't reallly need an auto power supply for the
laptop, since the phone will work in those few situations where I needed
the laptop.

I know even when I had a phone for phone calls, I've used the laptop in
the car 3 or 4 times over 3 months. I'm trying to remember what they
were. The one I can think of now... Someone had pointed out an important
road to me going up a 1000 foot hill. I coudl find it on google
satellite view but I drove around in person for 20 minutes and couldn't
find it. I went back to my room, saved the google sat view webpage in
the laptop and a few days later went back, and when I tried to display
the webpage, it was black. For some technical reason, google sat view
pages couldn't be saved. So I drove a mile to a McDonalds, at 7AM. It
was closed but I could still use its wifi to display the same image, and
then without closing the laptop I drove back and found the road, and
drove up it about 100 feet, until all the rocks stopped me.

On 25/10/2021 06.45, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 24.10.21 um 19:22 schrieb Ken Blake:
>> As far as I'm concerned,
>>
>> A desktop can do much more serious stuff than
>>
>> a laptop, which can do more serious stuff than
>>
>> a tablet, which can do more serious stuff than
>>
>> a smart phone.
>
> I tend to agree except I see no difference between a laptop and a
> desktop. Au contraire because the serious stuff can be done everywhere
> with a laptop which is certainly not possible with a desktop. All the
> components of a desktop can be added to a laptop if needed.
>

No, I feel cramped on my laptop. Smaller keyboard, mouse, screen...

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 10/24/2021 5:49 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/24/2021 10:22 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On 10/23/2021 11:27 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> Am 24.10.21 um 05:30 schrieb The Real Bev:
>>>> Using google maps for city streets, major highways etc. is fine, but
>>>> using it for anything else on a phone is less than optimum. I don't
>>>> understand how people can get along without desktops...
>>>
>>> I couldn't agree more!
>>
>> I disagree with "using it for anything else on a phone is less than
>> optimum." As a single example, I read Kindle books on my phone, and
>> especially since I often read in bed or while waiting in a doctors
>> office, using a desktop for that would be very impractical.
>>
>> However I largely agree with "I don't understand how people can get
>> along without desktops," although I think it's something of an
>> overstatement. I think that for the great majority of people, a desktop
>> is a much better choice than a laptop, but I know many people who get
>> along fine with a laptop.
>
> Perhaps it's different for people with tiny monkey fingers are really
> good hand-eye coordination, but I find any sort of "typing" of more than
> a few words is difficult and highly error-prone.

Same for me, but there *are* some people who get along fine with a laptop.

> The speech recognition
> is really good, though.
>
>>> To do serious stuff, desktop or laptop computers are the devices of
>>> choice. Even tablets are not satifactory.
>
> Any serious writing, like here, is impossible. I didn't even put a
> newsreader on my phone, there's no point in reading if I can't write
> more than +1 or equivalent :-(

Some for me. I'm terrible typing on a phone's tiny keyboard--even wose
than on a laptop.

> In its favor, the ai.type keyboard makes it less unpleasant than any of
> the defaults I've seen. Its word guesses are generally REALLY good (tap
> to choose, I wouldn't dream of using any auto-spell EVER) and if you
> somehow manage to offset your fingers it figures out what you REALLY
> wanted to type. Plus it's hugely configurable and you can make it a lot
> of pretty colors.
>
>> What is satisfactory depends on what the serious stuff is (and we don't
>> all have the same definition of "serious").
>
> It might well be that the difficulty of using a tiny virtual keyboard is
> responsible for most of the crap on twitter as well as the general
> dumbing down of the population as a whole. Discuss...
>
>> As far as I'm concerned,
>>
>> A desktop can do much more serious stuff than
>>
>> a laptop, which can do more serious stuff than
>>
>> a tablet, which can do more serious stuff than
>>
>> a smart phone.
>>
>> They are all computers and they can all do *some* serious stuff, just
>> not the same amounts or all the same things
>>
>> Regarding "devices of choice," as far as I'm concerned a desktop is
>> almost always a far better choice than a laptop for almost everyone. But
>> which I choose and for any particular use and where I am. For example,
>> when I'm traveling, a smart phone is my device of choice.
>>
>> By the way, I'm well aware that there are many people these days who
>> prefer a laptop to a desktop. Some of those people have a good reason
>> for that preference, but in my opinion, it's a terrible choice for the
>> great majority.
>
> Yes. I have a decent laptop with a touchscreen and Win10 which seems
> kind of nice, but if I have to install HR Block or TurboTax on it rather
> than my ancient Win7 machine I'm not going to be happy.
>

--
Ken

On 10/24/2021 9:45 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 24.10.21 um 19:22 schrieb Ken Blake:
>> As far as I'm concerned,
>>
>> A desktop can do much more serious stuff than
>>
>> a laptop, which can do more serious stuff than
>>
>> a tablet, which can do more serious stuff than
>>
>> a smart phone.
>
> I tend to agree except I see no difference between a laptop and a
> desktop.

Many differences. I have to go out now, so I can't list them, but I'll
try to remember to do it later.

> Au contraire because the serious stuff can be done everywhere
> with a laptop which is certainly not possible with a desktop. All the
> components of a desktop can be added to a laptop if needed.
>

--
Ken

"Ken Blake" <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote in message
news:itntu7Fu09eU2@mid.individual.net...
> On 10/24/2021 9:45 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 24.10.21 um 19:22 schrieb Ken Blake:
>>> As far as I'm concerned,
>>>
>>> A desktop can do much more serious stuff than
>>>
>>> a laptop, which can do more serious stuff than
>>>
>>> a tablet, which can do more serious stuff than
>>>
>>> a smart phone.
>>
>> I tend to agree except I see no difference between a laptop and a
>> desktop.
>
>
> Many differences. I have to go out now, so I can't list them, but I'll try
> to remember to do it later.

I would say that the differences between a desktop and a laptop are fairly
small these days. Probably the only significant ones are:

- inability to have more than one internal HDD (but USB HDDs can be plugged
in temporarily)

- smaller keys on keyboard, possibly with no separate numeric keypad, and
maybe with lesser-used keys (eg \ and | key) in unusual positions; my laptop
cannot (AFAIK) reproduce accented/typographical characters using Alt+0145
etc because there is no separate numeric keypad

- the smaller screen (15" rather than 25") means that it is necessary to
work at 125% rather than 100% text size for text to be legible, even
allowing for a laptop screen generally being a bit closer to you than a
desktop screen

But for most purposes, they are interchangeable. My laptop is a lot faster
than my desktop due to: SSD rather than HDD; faster (much newer) CPU; 16 GB
rather than 8 GB RAM.

The difference comes between desktop/laptop on the one hand and tablet/phone
(Android) on the other: the lack of a mouse to point precisely, the need to
use an on-screen keyboard with very small keys, and the lack of a
right-click mouse button (need to use long-press instead) makes serious
usage a lot slower and more laborious.

But you use the correct tool for the job: I wouldn't try to type a report or
manipulate a drawing on a phone/tablet, but it's fine for web-browsing and
short replies to emails etc. At a pinch I can control my desktop PC from my
phone via RealVNC or TeamViewer, with the proviso that you need long-press
for right-click menus which slows things down (waiting for press to be
registered as "long").

I dare say a larger-screen tablet with an external keyboard and a mouse is
almost as good as a laptop.