City Navigator Or City Select

[TripleDiamonds]

Hello,

Forgive me as I am new to the gps world. I just got off the phone with Garmin and was speaking with them in regards to City Select and where I could find a copy in my city. They then told me that that product would not be making any more updates to the software and that ver 7 would most likely be the last version of that product. They informed me that the product they are going with would be City Navigator (with v7 being the most recent). At this point I would tend to lean towards City Navigator v7 so that I can get more updates as the cities expand. What do you think?

 

Thank you

[Neo_Geo]

My take:

 

They just released City Select version 7 back in August, so it is pretty much as up to date as map data can get. I have been using City Select version 5 for nearly two years now. I think I could probably use it for another two without feeling like the data is obsolete.

 

The data is pretty old when it gets released anyway. After my brother moved into a new house a few years back, it took 'em three years to get his street to show up on the maps...

 

So - you could probably do alright with City Select version 7. By the time you REALLY need to update your maps, they'll probably discontinue City Navigator and come out with something else

[TripleDiamonds]

Is there any downside to buying city navigator? Or will it work with my etrex legend C unit and serve its purpose?

[peter]

Is there any downside to buying city navigator? Or will it work with my etrex legend C unit and serve its purpose?

Yes, the map regions are much larger in the current (vers. 7) CityNavigator-NA compared to CitySelect-NA. Since the LegendC is limited to 24 MB, some regions won't fit at all using the City Navigator maps and even if a region fits you're limited in flexibility if you can only specify a single region rather than choosing more precisely what area you'd like to cover by picking multiple regions in City Select. The actual map data (roads, addresses, POIs, etc.) are identical for the two products but there are minor differences in the routing characteristics.

[Neo_Geo]

It is my understanding that the Navigator map segments are much larger than the City Select segments. Because you'd be selecting larger segments to upload, you would be wasting map memory on areas that you don't really want to upload to your GPSr. With City Select's smaller map segments, you could be more precise in your selection of areas to upload.

 

CLICK HERE to see the thread...

 

I have posed the following to Garmin's Tech Support people...

 

I have heard that the City Select product will be discontinued and that City Navigator will be the replacement product. I have also heard that City Navigator's map segment sizes are much larger than City Select's and that some of City Navigator's map segments will not even fit into units with smaller memory capacities...

 

Does this mean that the LegendC is now obsolete and now I'll have to buy a Quest (or more expensive unit) in order to have up-to-date map data in a unit with autorouting?

 

I will post their reply when I receive it.

Edited November 10, 2005 by Neo_Geo

[+briansnat]

Yes, the map regions are much larger in the current (vers. 7) CityNavigator-NA compared to CitySelect-NA.

 

That blows. One thing I really liked about City Select over the Magellan software was the way you could select small map segments and ignore areas that you didn't need.

 

On Garmin's website they are boasting as if the larger segment size in CN is a good thing.

[+Renegade Knight]

Yes, the map regions are much larger in the current (vers. 7) CityNavigator-NA compared to CitySelect-NA.

 

That blows. One thing I really liked about City Select over the Magellan software was the way you could select small map segments and ignore areas that you didn't need.

 

On Garmin's website they are boasting as if the larger segment size in CN is a good thing.

I agree. That's one thing I did like. Hopefully Garmin is going to also tout megagigs of memory for dirt cheap soon.

[Neo_Geo]

On Garmin's website they are boasting as if the larger segment size in CN is a good thing.

Here's the quote:

 

Version 7 now includes larger map segments for easier map selection and downloading — so there's less chance you'll miss an area when planning your next trip!

 

I'm SOOOOOoooooo NOT happy that they're looking out for my well-being!

 

Hopefully Garmin is going to also tout megagigs of memory for dirt cheap soon.

Hold your breath until then and you will have been dead a VERY, VERY LONG TIME!

 

As a die-hard Garminite, I will say that my next GPSr might very well be a Magellan if they continue playing games with memory and mapping like this. Okay, well I probably wouldn't go THAT far - but I would seriously consider looking at the Lowrance line of products much closely...

Edited November 10, 2005 by Neo_Geo

[CenTexDodger]

The problem I have with this whole scheme is I already shelled out 400 hard earned dollars for a 60cs. It works good and is IMO rock solid. I don't want a NEW unit, I want map updates that work in my current unit. Unless they are willing to retrofit my 60cs with a gig of internal memory, or cut CN maps segments up like they are on the current versions of City Select, I too will be a very unhappy Garminite.

 

Add this: I will be willing to wait and see what official info Garmin comes out with before I start calling to complain and question their parentage. CN V8 might have smaller segments than V7, users of older versions of City Select might be able to upgrade to CN V8 for a reasonable amount. We shall see...

Edited November 11, 2005 by CenTexDodger

[Neo_Geo]

I'm willing to wait until the dust settles too, but if they are truly doing things for our benefit, then they are going about it in a very wrong way! It really does appear that they're gonna try screwing us into buying replacement units - planned obsolescence.

 

The 24MB of the LegendC/VistaC really is substandard in my opinion, but at least offers an autorouting option in a mid-priced unit. If they continue making large size segments in Navigator and only offering that as their handheld mapping solution, then using Navigator with a unit having 24MB of memory would be WORSE than using MetroGuide with the old B&W Legend's 8MB!

 

I have been singing Garmin's praises since I bought my first GPSr two and a half years ago. If the dust settles the way it appears it's gonna, then I will not only never buy another Garmin product, but I will bash their name whenever and wherever I can. They will have turned an otherwise loyal customer into their worst nightmare! And I think there would be many others just like me! Garmin would be making a HUGE mistake to continue in the manner in which it appears! Let's hope that they have a few aces up their sleeve which we don't know about that will allow us to continue our loyalty to Garmin...

Edited November 11, 2005 by Neo_Geo

[robertlipe]

Once again, I find myself agreeing with NeoGeo. The larger region size on CN vs. CS is real deal-breaker for units without commodity expandable memory.

If you have a unit with 24MB and are in a city that's split in half into two 13MB regions so you have to pick if you want East Blah or West Blah, it's a real problem.

 

I totally believe Garmin _can_ fix this in software - if unit ID == unit_has(smallish_memory) then pick smaller region chunk size - but until they do, CN is just not viable for many users on the handhelds with limited memory in the general case.

 

It's ironic that - again, like Neo Geo - this is one of the things I thought they'd gotten Really Right, so I was really shocked at this "let's paint the whole country with a roller" approach.

[Neo_Geo]

As I mentioned above, I posed the following question to Garmin's MapSource Tech Support:

 

I have heard that the City Select product will be discontinued and that City Navigator will be the replacement product. I have also heard that City Navigator's map segment sizes are much larger than City Select's and that some of City Navigator's map segments will not even fit into units with smaller memory capacities...

 

Does this mean that the LegendC is now obsolete and now I'll have to buy a Quest (or more expensive unit) in order to have up-to-date map data in a unit with autorouting?

 

...And here is the official reply:

 

Thank you for contacting Garmin International.

 

It is true that City Select has been replaced by City Navigator. The map

sets are broken down by state, so there are a few maps that would be too

large for the unit you have. For all of the US there are only four maps that

are 24mb or higher, that's it. It is also possible that the next version of

City Navigator may go back to the way it was. So no, I don't see why you

would need to buy a new unit with more memory.

 

Best regards,

Jason M.

[robertlipe]

...And here is the official reply:

[ ... ]

It is true that City Select has been replaced by City Navigator. The map

sets are broken down by state, so there are a few maps that would be too

large for the unit you have. For all of the US there are only four maps that

are 24mb or higher, that's it. It is also possible that the next version of

City Navigator may go back to the way it was. So no, I don't see why you

would need to buy a new unit with more memory.

 

Best regards,

Jason M.[/i]

Wow. That's pretty out of touch. It's true that there are only 4 regions larger than 24. Assuming that you never leave a region and don't travel in one of those four places, you aren't immediately spanked. But I had the impression that folks used GPSes to travel.

 

Here are the regions above 16MB:

SOUTHERN ONTARIO        City Navigator North America v7 25.3 MB
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA City Navigator North America v7 24.3 MB
SOUTHERN MISSOURI       City Navigator North America v7 24.2 MB
LOWER NEW ENGLAND EAST  City Navigator North America v7 24.0 MB
DALLAS, TEXAS   City Navigator North America v7 23.9 MB
NEW YORK, NEW YORK      City Navigator North America v7 22.2 MB
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA      City Navigator North America v7 21.3 MB
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA    City Navigator North America v7 21.0 MB
HOUSTON, TEXAS  City Navigator North America v7 20.9 MB
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA City Navigator North America v7 20.1 MB
KANSAS  City Navigator North America v7 18.8 MB
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS       City Navigator North America v7 18.7 MB
IOWA    City Navigator North America v7 18.3 MB
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA       City Navigator North America v7 18.1 MB
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA        City Navigator North America v7 18.0 MB
SOUTHERN MINNESOTA      City Navigator North America v7 17.6 MB
DETROIT, MICHIGAN       City Navigator North America v7 17.5 MB
SOUTHERN QUEBEC City Navigator North America v7 17.3 MB
ORLANDO, FLORIDA        City Navigator North America v7 17.2 MB
TAMPA, FLORIDA  City Navigator North America v7 17.2 MB
MIAMI, FLORIDA  City Navigator North America v7 17.2 MB
MISSISSIPPI     City Navigator North America v7 16.7 MB
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA   City Navigator North America v7 16.7 MB
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA   City Navigator North America v7 16.4 MB
WESTERN WASHINGTON      City Navigator North America v7 16.4 MB
NORTHERN ALABAMA        City Navigator North America v7 16.3 MB
SOUTHERN ARIZONA        City Navigator North America v7 16.1 MB
NORTHERN INDIANA        City Navigator North America v7 16.1 MB
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA        City Navigator North America v7 16.0 MB

 

I spot checked a copule of my caching destinations and one summer road trip.

 

Let's say you live in Louisville, KY. To get the 264 loop you have to get East and West KY regions totalling 21.59. If you venture across the river (and though New Albany and Clarksville may not like being considered Louisville, it's certainly no stretch disregard the state line running down the ohio reiver and to consider them such) that adds 10.5 Thus Metro Louisville no longer fits in a V, LegendC, or VistaC.

 

Nashville, TN to Ft. Wayne IN now takes 71.5MB, meaning that no longer fits

in a Map60. It was 28 in v6.

 

Nashville, TN to St. Louis, MO comes in at .9MB less, but still not enough to fit into a Map60. It was 19 in v6.

 

My family made a summer trip from Nashville to Niagra Falls to NYC. That's now 508MB of maps. It was 137.6 in CNv6. So it went from being able to squeak into a stock 2610, Quest, or 76C (if you were willing to travel with a few bald spots) to being just unrealistic. You'd be on the basemap the majority of the trip.

 

They must not be getting that this reduces the _effective_ map memory in their units by 2/3 rds and makes several shipping units - not just fossils of the past - unviable.

[CenTexDodger]

Totally agree. I said I would wait and see. I have seen. Time to email Garmin.

[CenTexDodger]

I just sent a message to Garmin regarding this issue. I suggest all Garminites do the same. I would post the text of my message, but I forgot to copy it before it sent it . I will let you know what I find out.