Which Gps Device To Get For Pandora?

[polkunus]

I know there was a post on this before, but didn't the devs leave some room for a gps reciever inside the pandora?

 

[parag0n]

I used wired USB and wired Compactflash units before the Bluetooth, and they are not as good IMHO.

I think this may be because the bluetooth one was probably a newer generation chip, nothing to do with the interface.

Most GPSessess will use one of three chipsets, SiRFstarII, SiRFstarIII, or MTK. They output NMEA sentences directly onto a serial port, and the computer interface, whether it be bluetooth, usb, or an rs232 level shifter attach to this output

 

[Tor]

This whole Bluetooth is a bad idea because its illegal thing simply does not apply in the EU, UK, USA, Mexico, and most likely all of Central and South America with the possible exception of Venezuela.

Yep. Bluetooth is definitely an easy and good option for a GPS for Pandora, unless you truly live in a country which forbids Bluetooth. Which would be almost nowhere (and even in Iran a bluetooth GPS isn't useful for photographing women, if that is the reasoning behind making BT illegal).

QUOTE

So, anyway, I've been using Bluetooth GPS for PC, Windows Mobile, and Nokia 770 Linux portables for several years. I used wired USB and wired Compactflash units before the Bluetooth, and they are not as good IMHO.
The Bluetooth unit runs for about 8 hours on a charge, uses standard 5V USB-style chargers, and is extremely small. I hot glued it to a small suction cup on a wire, and simply stick it to the car windshield.
No parasitic power sucking from the computer, and easily pops in my pocket when leaving the car.
It is definitely the way to go.


+1
And these days you get small ultra-sensitive robust GPS receivers that have battery time of 20+ hours.

QUOTE

Now we just need to figure out the software and maps.


If we manage the 'make it maemo-compatible' plan we'll have several good options! And even without maemo binary compatibility there's always the source code route, e.g. http://roadmap.sourceforge.net/

 

[cbp]

Go nuts with these ones: http://www.dealextreme.com/products.dx/category.413

I will probably get one from there.

 

[DasFool]

Has anyone been able to find an inexpensive bluetooth gps receiver? I can't seem to find anything under the $50 mark. I was able to find a really cheap sdio one though.

Edit:
Ok, I found a few cheaper bluetooth ones at geeks.com
Holux M-1000 Wireless Bluetooth GPS Receiver - $35.99

eBon eGPS-6500 65-Channel Bluetooth GPS Receiver - $34.99

BT-5721 Bluetooth GPS 44-Channel Satellite Receiver (White) - $29.99

 

[phrosty]

In addition to the Canmore GT-730F, I have a Qstarz BT-Q1300. It is a tad expensive at $100 (they do have a cheaper model that doesn't log, but I haven't used it) but if you're looking for the best bluetooth receiver, qstarz would be the one to get - it uses some new MTK chip that stomps the SiRF III in sensitivity, and fits on your keychain. It also works in Linux.

 

[mafia-man]

Do a search on ebay for blue tooth GPS receivers, there are loads on there dirt cheep, I remember buying some SiRFstarII one for about £5 a couple of years ago, brand new!

seeing the SiRFstarIII ones for about £15-20 these days.

However it's all well and good having a GPS receiver but are there actually any map/navigation software projects in the pipeline for the big P?

 

[OrR]

TangoGPS ( http://www.tangogps.org/ ) will probably be there very quickly and I love it on my Neo 1973.

 

[Squidge]

For instance, the standard for USB pretty much requires that a USB master first talk to a device in full speed or low speed before switching to high speed, so I don't understand how one can design a USB master that only works in high speed mode.

When you plug a low or full speed device into a high speed port, they are given to a USB 1.1 "companion" controller, which is a OHCI or UHCI controller as normally used with such devices. When USB 1.1 devices plug into USB 2.0 hubs, they interact with the EHCI controller through a "Transaction Translator" in the hub, which turns low or full speed transactions into high speed "split transactions" that don't waste transfer bandwidth.

The OMAP3 has both a EHCI and a OHCI controller, but each port can only be assigned to exactly one controller at a time. It seems Michael decided on the most common arrangement of assigning the high speed controller to the USB host socket, and the other controller to the OTG/Device socket. Whilst it may have been possible to do as the above to support all speeds on a single socket, you would then end up with only a single USB port (and probably added cost/more complex routing/space). The cost/routing/space is also why an embedded USB2.0 hub wasn't builtin to the device.

In your case, you would probably be best using either a bluetooth GPS, or a GPS connected to a USB2.0 Extension cable which contains an embedded repeater (which is typically just a minimal hub).

 

[canguy247]

It seems Michael decided on the most common arrangement of assigning the high speed controller to the USB host socket, and the other controller to the OTG/Device socket.

I think the full-size host port is the lower (up to full speed) device and the OTG can handle all speeds. I will double check when I get a chance...

EDIT: Never mind...the host port is, in fact, high speed only.

 

[Grench]

Finding a bluetooth GPS is pretty easy.

What are all of you planning to run for GPS/mapping/driving directions/topographic map software to make it useful?

 

[DAP]

The most interesting chipset for USB I've seen so far is the U-Blox 5.

Unfortunately, the only device I have identified that uses it, is one made by Microsoft that is only available as part of a $250 software package.

 

[adsharma23]

i personally would not be a fan of a bluetooth gps system which i agree would be perfect for driving (but seeing as i don't even have my permit to start driving yet i really wouldn't want that)
i'm intrigued by using an sdio gps system simply because it would be amazingly portable and would basically be built in
if i need more than 32gb of memory than i'll forget about it, but sdio would be the most innovative solution for non driving purposes

 

[Tor]

I do a lot of non-driving with my GPS, I don't see why bluetooth shouldn't be even better than sdio for this purpose. I have a little BT GPS in a pocket in my jacket somewhere. Its battery capacity is so good that I can even just leave it on all day even if I'm not momentarily using it.

Then, when I walk around in a city and want to track where I go, or I'm somewhere in the terrain, I switch on my handheld and I'm good. I can't see how an SDIO GPS could be any better, it's the opposite way around in my opinion - the SDIO units tend to stick out of the handheld so it would be problematic whenever I want to put the handheld away in a pocket or somewhere.

 

[DAP]

Even in the unlikely event that you are allowed to use a GPS on a plane, you won't be allowed to use a Bluetooth GPS on a plane.

 

[DAP]

The most interesting chipset for USB I've seen so far is the U-Blox 5.

Unfortunately, the only device I have identified that uses it, is one made by Microsoft that is only available as part of a $250 software package.

This chipset only supports full speed (this was buried very deep in the data sheets, they keep referring to the port as USB 2.0) so it is not compatible with the full sized USB port on the Pandora.

This chipset requires 120 mA to operate, so it is not compatible with the USB OTG port of the Pandora. The only way one could use this is with a hub.

Perhaps, in the next revision of the Pandora motherboard, a 4 port USB hub could be added, even if only one of the ports is brought out, such that we didn't have to worry about device compatibility with ports.

 

[phrosty]

The most interesting chipset for USB I've seen so far is the U-Blox 5.

Unfortunately, the only device I have identified that uses it, is one made by Microsoft that is only available as part of a $250 software package.

This chipset only supports full speed (this was buried very deep in the data sheets, they keep referring to the port as USB 2.0) so it is not compatible with the full sized USB port on the Pandora.

This chipset requires 120 mA to operate, so it is not compatible with the USB OTG port of the Pandora. The only way one could use this is with a hub.

Perhaps, in the next revision of the Pandora motherboard, a 4 port USB hub could be added, even if only one of the ports is brought out, such that we didn't have to worry about device compatibility with ports.


The Pandora can provide the full 500mA to one of it's ports, so why is this a problem?

 

[DAP]

The most interesting chipset for USB I've seen so far is the U-Blox 5.

Unfortunately, the only device I have identified that uses it, is one made by Microsoft that is only available as part of a $250 software package.

This chipset only supports full speed (this was buried very deep in the data sheets, they keep referring to the port as USB 2.0) so it is not compatible with the full sized USB port on the Pandora.

This chipset requires 120 mA to operate, so it is not compatible with the USB OTG port of the Pandora. The only way one could use this is with a hub.

Perhaps, in the next revision of the Pandora motherboard, a 4 port USB hub could be added, even if only one of the ports is brought out, such that we didn't have to worry about device compatibility with ports.


The Pandora can provide the full 500mA to one of it's ports, so why is this a problem?


Because the port that can supply 500 mA to does not support usb full speed, or usb low speed, only usb high speed.

And because the port that can support all three modes of operation (USB OTG) can only supply 100 mA, and requires an uncommon connector on the cable (mini-A) to operate as a host.

There are quite a few devices that require more than 100 mA and only operate at low or full speed.


This makes me ask a stupid question.
Why does the USB OTG port, the one that requires an uncommon cable connector to operate as a host, and can only supply 100 mA of current, get the hardware to handle low speed, and full speed operation?

If the standard USB port had this hardware instead, I can't see that we would be having any issues.

Does the USB OTG spec require this functionality and the normal USB spec not?

 

[OrR]

Even in the unlikely event that you are allowed to use a GPS on a plane, you won't be allowed to use a Bluetooth GPS on a plane.

GPS doesn't work at flying heights anyway. Also no reason it shouldn't be allowed on a plane as it doesn't send, only receive. Bluetooth is so low power compared to GSM or even WLAN that I wouldn't worry about it but it might be forbidden, I don't know.

 

[Tor]

The above is wrong on both counts:

1) GPS receivers are allowed on most planes as far as I know, including BT devices (because of the low power)
2) They also work perfectly fine at high altitude. You just need one of the new chipsets that doesn't need you to not move when waiting for lock, and sensitive enough to work inside the plane.
3) I have personally tested and verified claim 2).