In message , at
02:53:33 on Wed, 7 Oct 2015, remarked:

I'm talking about the very right wing "Devil take the hindmost" approach
to those not kitted out with all the very latest expensive technology.

A smartphone with GPS and access to google maps is not "the very latest
expensive technology", it's cheap commodity off the shelf technology
that most people already have. You can buy an android handset SIM free
for about £100 these days.

And roaming data?

Having bought your cheapo SIM-free handset, getting a local SIM card at
your point of arrival in your foreign destination is dirt cheap.

Have you actually tried that in authoritarian countries like India or
Egypt? And when I went looking for a local SIM in Brussels it took me
several days to find a shop which had one - they don't have phone stores
on every street corner like we do in London.

Getting back to the "Knowledge" thing, it's never been the case that you
needed to point to your destination on a map when instructing a minicab
driver. If it's not possible to describe the destination to them so they
recognise it, they have an A to Z

So your point is you don't have to point out your destination on a map
because they have a map (on which you can point out your destination)?

No, I don't point at their paper map because I don't know exactly where
the destination is. It's their job to translate the description of the
destination to co-ordinates.

So just like an Uber driver then. Except that Uber drivers have the
ability to search on google if they don't recognise your description,
whereas a conventional minicab driver with an AtoZ will just be left
guessing.

Hold on! I thought you couldn't get a Uber driver to be assigned to you
unless *you* had *first* pointed to the destination on an online map.

That's nonsense because the minicab is driving around the streets all
day, every day of the week. Of course he'll be more familiar than I am
about where some random destination I've never been before might be
located.

What's your point here? Before you were arguing that minicab drivers
might not know where you are going and how terrible that was, and now
you are saying that minicab drivers will know where they are going
because they drive around the place all the time and get to know the
neighbourhood. Well which is it?

It's the way that Uber drivers can apparently fail to concede they have
any local knowledge about destinations, because it's the passenger's
responsibility to point to a location on a map.

Do you have experience of Uber drivers behaving like this, or are you
just making this up?

See above. What's your experience of hiring a Uber driver and then
*afterwards* discussing with them where you want to go?

I mean it's not like Uber drivers are making a living by driving people
around where they might notice local landmarks or anything.

You've been banging on about all these places you might want to go that
can't be found on google maps, and then when you give an example you
chose one that can be found on google maps in a trifle. So where are
all these places people want to go that can't be found on google maps?

Your starter for ten: The Ely Post Office.

Typing that into the maps app on my phone puts a pin in the map on
Market St, a little to the east of where the pedestrianised "Chequer
Ln" meets it.

That's presumably an iPhone, not Google maps.

It also offers up a link to www.postoffice.co.uk, and if I follow that
and type "Ely" into its branch finder, it offers a street address of

Central Hall, Unit 2,
Market Street,
Ely,
Cambridgeshire
CB7 4LU

A google search for "Ely Post Office" also turns up some local
newspaper stories form January suggesting it has moved to "permanent"
premises on Market St after being in a portacabin for a while. Has it
moved again (and www.postoffice.co.uk not been updated)?

That's the final location, but Google maps hasn't caught up yet.

You might be happy to do this, but it is definitely not the most
"timely and affordable" way of doing things.

It's more affordable than buying a smartphone.

So is staying at home. You specifically didn't say "cheapest
possible", you chose to argue on a condition, "timely and affordable".
Smartphones are not expensive these days and have myriad uses beyond
finding public transport.

Are we really arguing about the difference between "most affordable" and
"cheapest possible". If so I give up.

No, "timely and affordable" is not the same as "most affordable" or
"cheapest possible". Walking to the bus stop and looking at the signs
on it (and hoping they are correct) is cheaper than using a smart
phone, but is not the most efficient way of conducting that journey.
Smartphones have reached the price point where they are affordable to
all parts of society.

I disagree. Neither a monthly contract, nor an unlocked phone plus a
maze of "SIM only" deals to negotiate, are value for money for someone
who only needs it once or twice a month.

And where I live there are only two bus stops in the High Street, twenty
feet apart.

Which is not in London. As this is uk.transport.london, I figured an
example of buses in London would be a more appropriate example.

London is big enough, I could find a similar example if I wanted to.

Right, but without knowing a priori that there is or is not a second
alternative bus route, you have no way of knowing that the bus stop you
have chosen is the best one to use for your journey. Some journeys
have only a single bus route, others have multiple. If you want the
most timely journey option, you need to do a bit of research. Back in
the day the time taken to do that was prohibitive.

Not when there are two adjacent bus stops, and about four routes to
choose from.

Today, with modern, affordable technology, it is not.

Actually, very many online bus timetable resources in the provinces are
woefully out of date.
--
Roland Perry