Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:11:07 -0700
I track my daughter the tour director on google maps. Every once in a
while her location will shift by as much as half a mile and then shift
Organization: None, as usual
back within minutes. Is there any possible cause for this besides a
phone defect? She uses iPhones, but long ago a cheap BLU phone did this
a LOT, giving interesting saved ski tracks.
Lines: 10

--
Cheers, Bev
Message-ID: <v59vgt$gb31$1@dont-email.me>
Never try to extort more than it would cost to have you killed.

MIME-Version: 1.0
. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 22:11:09 +0200 (CEST)

The Real Bev wrote:

> Every once in a while her location will shift by as much as half a mile
> and then shift back within minutes.  Is there any possible cause for this

Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
location?

On 6/23/24 1:21 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Every once in a while her location will shift by as much as half a mile
>> and then shift back within minutes.  Is there any possible cause for this
>
> Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
> location?

Standing still. This isn't a quiz, I really want to know.

--
Cheers, Bev
Everyone crashes. Some get back on. Some don't. Some can't.

On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:59:56 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 6/23/24 1:21 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> Every once in a while her location will shift by as much as half a mile
>>> and then shift back within minutes.  Is there any possible cause for this
>>
>> Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
>> location?
>
> Standing still. This isn't a quiz, I really want to know.

GPS location relies on signals from GPS satellites being direct *line
of sight*, and comparing the timing of signals from multiple GPS
satellites to extremely fine accuracy (a nanosecond, the time it takes
a signal to travel one foot). It is not "Harry Potter" magic. If any
GPS satellite signal is not line of sight, this will throw the
calculation out.

If your daughter is anywhere where her device could be using a GPS
satellite signal that is reflected off a building, wall, cliff,
or otherwise not direct line of sight, then this is not surprising.

If your daughter is anywhere where her device does not get direct
*line of sight* signals from at least 4 (four) GPS satellites, then
this is also not surprising.

If your daughter was outdoors in a wide open plain, not under a roof,
not next to a building, cliff, or wall higher than her device, not in
a canyon, no tall buildings, hills, or mountains nearby, then and only
then I would guess an issue on one of the GPS satellites. Such issues
are generally notified; see
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_Advisory_to_Navstar_Users>.

GPS was originally designed for nuclear submarines in the middle of
the ocean, where GPS signals will always be line of sight and
at least 4 (four) GPS satellites will always be in line of sight.

This *is* a pot-luck quiz when we do not know what kind of place your
daughter is in.

Although your daughter may be standing still, the GPS satellites are
not. GPS satellites are NOT geostationary. GPS satellite signals
do move.

--
Kind regards
Ralph Fox
🦊

Change of place changes not mens minds or manners.

The Real Bev wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
>> location?
>
> Standing still.

The satellites aren't ...

Andy Burns wrote on Mon, 24 Jun 2024 06:54:11 +0100 :

> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
>>> location?
>>
>> Standing still.
>
> The satellites aren't ...

Q: When you're tracking someone else, does "snapping to objects" apply?
A: ???

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.

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/>

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.

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?

On 6/24/2024 2:24 AM, Ralph Fox wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:59:56 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 6/23/24 1:21 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Every once in a while her location will shift by as much as half a mile
>>>> and then shift back within minutes.  Is there any possible cause for this
>>>
>>> Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
>>> location?
>>
>> Standing still. This isn't a quiz, I really want to know.
>
>
> GPS location relies on signals from GPS satellites being direct *line
> of sight*, and comparing the timing of signals from multiple GPS
> satellites to extremely fine accuracy (a nanosecond, the time it takes
> a signal to travel one foot). It is not "Harry Potter" magic. If any
> GPS satellite signal is not line of sight, this will throw the
> calculation out.
>
>
> If your daughter is anywhere where her device could be using a GPS
> satellite signal that is reflected off a building, wall, cliff,
> or otherwise not direct line of sight, then this is not surprising.
>
> If your daughter is anywhere where her device does not get direct
> *line of sight* signals from at least 4 (four) GPS satellites, then
> this is also not surprising.
>
> If your daughter was outdoors in a wide open plain, not under a roof,
> not next to a building, cliff, or wall higher than her device, not in
> a canyon, no tall buildings, hills, or mountains nearby, then and only
> then I would guess an issue on one of the GPS satellites. Such issues
> are generally notified; see
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_Advisory_to_Navstar_Users>.
>
> GPS was originally designed for nuclear submarines in the middle of
> the ocean, where GPS signals will always be line of sight and
> at least 4 (four) GPS satellites will always be in line of sight.
>
>
> This *is* a pot-luck quiz when we do not know what kind of place your
> daughter is in.
>
> Although your daughter may be standing still, the GPS satellites are
> not. GPS satellites are NOT geostationary. GPS satellite signals
> do move.
>
>

I also noticed that Google's quality of their GPS data seems to have
gone down lately. I started doing longer extended walks about two years
ago, and noticed that over time the timeline Google provides has become
somewhat unreliable in tracking how much I walked. It was better before,
getting at least a rough estimate of the distance I walked through the
city. The last few months it has stopped being reliable, with large
sections of my walk missing.
This doesn't seem to be a GPS issue, as using 3rd party GPS apps
provides much better tracking where I am.

--
@kyonshi@dice.camp · gmkeros.wordpress.com · @kyonshi@pixelfed.de

Am 24.06.24 um 07:54 schrieb Andy Burns:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
>>> location?
>>
>> Standing still.
>
> The satellites aren't ...

Not relevant.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Am 23.06.24 um 22:11 schrieb The Real Bev:
> I track my daughter the tour director on google maps. Every once in a
> while her location will shift by as much as half a mile and then shift
> back within minutes.

A running gag with your Pixel 2?

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

On 6/24/24 9:37 AM, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 23.06.24 um 22:11 schrieb The Real Bev:
>> I track my daughter the tour director on google maps. Every once in a
>> while her location will shift by as much as half a mile and then shift
>> back within minutes.
>
> A running gag with your Pixel 2?

Pixel2 is out of it. From her iPhone to google to my REAL computer.

--
Cheers, Bev
If you are going to try cross-country skiing,
start with a small country.

On 6/23/24 5:24 PM, Ralph Fox wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:59:56 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 6/23/24 1:21 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Every once in a while her location will shift by as much as half a mile
>>>> and then shift back within minutes.  Is there any possible cause for this
>>>
>>> Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
>>> location?
>>
>> Standing still. This isn't a quiz, I really want to know.
>
>
> GPS location relies on signals from GPS satellites being direct *line
> of sight*, and comparing the timing of signals from multiple GPS
> satellites to extremely fine accuracy (a nanosecond, the time it takes
> a signal to travel one foot). It is not "Harry Potter" magic. If any
> GPS satellite signal is not line of sight, this will throw the
> calculation out.
>
>
> If your daughter is anywhere where her device could be using a GPS
> satellite signal that is reflected off a building, wall, cliff,
> or otherwise not direct line of sight, then this is not surprising.
>
> If your daughter is anywhere where her device does not get direct
> *line of sight* signals from at least 4 (four) GPS satellites, then
> this is also not surprising.
>
> If your daughter was outdoors in a wide open plain, not under a roof,
> not next to a building, cliff, or wall higher than her device, not in
> a canyon, no tall buildings, hills, or mountains nearby, then and only
> then I would guess an issue on one of the GPS satellites. Such issues
> are generally notified; see
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_Advisory_to_Navstar_Users>.

I would assume that such issues are uncommon. Am I wrong?

> GPS was originally designed for nuclear submarines in the middle of
> the ocean, where GPS signals will always be line of sight and
> at least 4 (four) GPS satellites will always be in line of sight.
>
> This *is* a pot-luck quiz when we do not know what kind of place your
> daughter is in.

Lots of places, many of which do not have wifi capability -- like the
Atlantic Ocean. BUT the most surprising is when she's in a bus on an
interstate highway.

Same thing when I'm being tracked (hubby, google maps, location sharing)
in my car on an flat interstate. Sudden 30-mile jump.

In my case, the ski tracks (same app) I recorded at the same ski area
were vastly different with the cheesy BLU phone (sudden straight 1-mile
foray into the middle of a lake, for instance) and my Motorolas and
Pixel 2, which may have been off by yards.

This is clearly a phone-quality thing, but I would assume that an iPhone
wouldn't have the same defects.

> Although your daughter may be standing still, the GPS satellites are
> not. GPS satellites are NOT geostationary. GPS satellite signals
> do move.

--
Cheers, Bev
If you are going to try cross-country skiing,
start with a small country.

On 6/23/24 11:18 PM, Andrew wrote:
> Andy Burns wrote on Mon, 24 Jun 2024 06:54:11 +0100 :
>
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
>>>> location?
>>>
>>> Standing still.
>>
>> The satellites aren't ...
>
> 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 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.
>
> 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.

> 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.

> 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?

--
Cheers, Bev
If you are going to try cross-country skiing,
start with a small country.

On 6/24/24 4:45 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
> On 6/24/2024 2:24 AM, Ralph Fox wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2024 13:59:56 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 6/23/24 1:21 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>>>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Every once in a while her location will shift by as much as half a mile
>>>>> and then shift back within minutes.  Is there any possible cause for this
>>>>
>>>> Losing view of the satellites and falling back to cell tower or wifi
>>>> location?
>>>
>>> Standing still. This isn't a quiz, I really want to know.
>>
>>
>> GPS location relies on signals from GPS satellites being direct *line
>> of sight*, and comparing the timing of signals from multiple GPS
>> satellites to extremely fine accuracy (a nanosecond, the time it takes
>> a signal to travel one foot). It is not "Harry Potter" magic. If any
>> GPS satellite signal is not line of sight, this will throw the
>> calculation out.
>>
>>
>> If your daughter is anywhere where her device could be using a GPS
>> satellite signal that is reflected off a building, wall, cliff,
>> or otherwise not direct line of sight, then this is not surprising.
>>
>> If your daughter is anywhere where her device does not get direct
>> *line of sight* signals from at least 4 (four) GPS satellites, then
>> this is also not surprising.
>>
>> If your daughter was outdoors in a wide open plain, not under a roof,
>> not next to a building, cliff, or wall higher than her device, not in
>> a canyon, no tall buildings, hills, or mountains nearby, then and only
>> then I would guess an issue on one of the GPS satellites. Such issues
>> are generally notified; see
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_Advisory_to_Navstar_Users>.
>>
>> GPS was originally designed for nuclear submarines in the middle of
>> the ocean, where GPS signals will always be line of sight and
>> at least 4 (four) GPS satellites will always be in line of sight.
>>
>>
>> This *is* a pot-luck quiz when we do not know what kind of place your
>> daughter is in.
>>
>> Although your daughter may be standing still, the GPS satellites are
>> not. GPS satellites are NOT geostationary. GPS satellite signals
>> do move.
>
> I also noticed that Google's quality of their GPS data seems to have
> gone down lately. I started doing longer extended walks about two years
> ago, and noticed that over time the timeline Google provides has become
> somewhat unreliable in tracking how much I walked. It was better before,
> getting at least a rough estimate of the distance I walked through the
> city. The last few months it has stopped being reliable, with large
> sections of my walk missing.
> This doesn't seem to be a GPS issue, as using 3rd party GPS apps
> provides much better tracking where I am.

I started using Ski Tracks when it first became available. I think it
costs $1.50 now, but well worth it. It tries to frame everything in
terms of ski runs (sometimes funny), but the files it saves are fine and
can be dumped into google earth -- which is way less valuable than it
might be. AND it's not battery-hungry like OSMand.

In fact google maps could be way better than they are.

--
Cheers, Bev
If you are going to try cross-country skiing,
start with a small country.

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.

On 6/26/24 8:15 PM, Andrew wrote:
> 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 think OSMand has a 'snap' setting, but I haven't used it for a long
time since it REALLY eats the battery.

> 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.

Not really. Imagine 100 miles of interstate in Los Angeles County.
Cell towers up the kazoo. I show up on my family's google map in Place
A. Although I am driving west at 80mph my dot/image is stuck in Place A
for 20 minutes. Maybe an hour. Every once in a while my location might
update and then just sits there for some time period. Wash, rinse,
repeat. This is the problem. Hubby worries about me unnecessarily,
especially when I seem to be stuck in a place there is no reason to be
stuck in other than total disaster.

This is standard. I am NEVER (except momentarily while under
overpasses) out of line-of-sight of the satellites. My data SIM connects
to T-Mobile roaming, and T-Mobile coverage claims to be perfect on
interstates, although it's really spotty in rural and mountain areas.

The path recorded by my Ski Tracks app (not battery hungry) is accurate
while skiing, walking and driving within yards, I would guess. Hard to
tell because you just don't know exactly where you were 2 hours (or even
2 minutes) ago.

--
Cheers, Bev
No lawyering. Prosecutors will be violated.

The Real Bev wrote on Wed, 26 Jun 2024 22:46:31 -0700 :

> A. Although I am driving west at 80mph my dot/image is stuck in Place A
> for 20 minutes. Maybe an hour. Every once in a while my location might
> update and then just sits there for some time period. Wash, rinse,
> repeat. This is the problem.

Well, that doesn't sound at all like a snapping problem, so I stand
corrected.

I think that a position freezing in place is either a network problem, or a
data-transfer-delay problem of some sort.

I would hate to try to debug something like that - but like everything -
I'm sure it can be debugged - I just don't personally know how to do that.

Maybe the others do.