GPS Vs COMPASS

Norman said:

I am surprised when you indicate repeatedly in your comments how easy
it is to use a map and compass compared to using a GPS. Having walked
for a similar period as yourself mainly in Scotland and Yorkshire and
used maps and a compass for the majority of the time I find a GPS much
simpler to use.

It very much depends on your particular job. For mine, walking
where I happen to walk and relating to the landscape the way I do,
a GPS just represents extra steps I wouldn't normally need to take
to get to the same place. Why bother? And I have one, because
there are times when I really appreciate what it can do, but
typically my walking ventures are not included.

Quoted message said:

I dont have any fixed views about GPS receivers but
write in support of them because I am fed up with people in this news
group slating the things.

I would say that the general view of u.r.w. is generally very
positive towards them. Pointing out that for someone who really
uses a map and/or local knowledge they don't actually make life any
easier is just a statement of fact, rather than "slating".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I dont have any fixed views about GPS receivers but
write in support of them because I am fed up with people in this news
group slating the things.

I would say that the general view of u.r.w. is generally very
positive towards them. Pointing out that for someone who really
uses a map and/or local knowledge they don't actually make life any
easier is just a statement of fact, rather than "slating".

Pete.

I would say that for every positive comment about GPS receivers and
their uses there are many more expressing negative aspects and that
the use of a map and compass are as much required to walk safely in
the hills as a bible is in a christian church.

It is not long ago when there was an outcry when The Times switched
from a firm stance on remaining a "Broadsheet newspaper" to horror of
horrors a "tabloid" The die-hard readers were really upset, why? It
was change, they simply could not allow themselves to admit that
reading a tabloid was far easier even if it did contain as much news
as its larger predecessor had. It did not concern them that the Daily
Mail sold more papers in one day than The Times did in four. A tabloid
was synonymous with the working class and taboo to read one. The
ritual of the re-arrangement of the broadsheet especially in full view
of the seated train passengers was a learned art. It was sacrilege to
stoop to reading prospective fish & chip wrapping paper.

Using a map and a compass requires a certain degree of skill to effect
a safe outcome. It is easy when you know how. It is an art that
separates those that can from those that can't. In other words an
elitist group. It is the possible separation from that group and the
act of maybe having to resort to an advancing trend that generates the
resistance. It has a powerful lobby because its members are respected
writers in this newsgroup. There are definitive statements made about
gear and any opposite opinions made are usually squashed with a
succession of withering comments made to make the writer feel
inadequate or not in the "know". The comments persist until a state of
supremacy is reached. Much encouragement and support is offered from
like-minded writers (arm chair walkers) with the eventual outcome
being no further writings from the surmised interloper, dubbed troll.
A state of calm returns to the NG and the other less influential
writers engage in much inconsequential rhetoric aimed at staying out
of the "flak" but still trying to appear intellectual and without
sacrificing their position in the "pecking order"
(Perceived URW protocol)

Norman
ps dont all laugh at once.

Norman said:

I would say that for every positive comment about GPS receivers and
their uses there are many more expressing negative aspects and that
the use of a map and compass are as much required to walk safely in
the hills as a bible is in a christian church.

But since people have been walking safely in the hills without map or
compass for centuries that's rather over-egging the pudding, and
obviously so!

There are certainly some luddites, but I don't think folk like Roger and
me can really be cast there on this matter. We both own and use GPS
units. Neither of us uses them for normal navigation work on foot
because they don't make our lives any easier in that respect. This is
something that is worth pointing out, I think.

My advice to people wanting to improve navigation skills remains what
it's been for a while: go orienteering. I finally got around to taking
my own advice myself a couple of years ago, and it's definitely
improving my grasp of how a map truly relates to the ground, which is
IMHO the most fundamental part of navigation from maps, whether you use
a GPS, a compass, neither, or both.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Alan Dicey" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The map, though, *is* your bible and should always be carried and

used.

There are other religions apart from Christianity.

Alan Dicey said:

I am most likely to use the compass at the start or end of a walk, to
make sure of following the right of way through the farmer's fields and
finding gates or stiles. In lowland rambles I have had to use the
compass to point me across a pasture or ploughed field to find the
crossing point at the far boundary. I'm not sure a GPS would be much
help in those situations.

Don't see why not: if you know where the crossing point is then you can
ask the GPS to take you there. If you know a bearing, make a waypoint
where you are and project it beyond the field on the bearing angle and
follow a bearing to it may be easier than entering a waypoint by hand at
a grid reference. Easily possible, but more faff than just following a
rough bearing on a compass. For simple work, a simple tool often works
best.

Quoted message said:

The use of a compass to get yourself out of trouble in mist or being
benighted requires that you know exactly where you are before you get
the compass out.

Not really. It's more usually the case that knowing vaguely where you
are is more than enough, as you can work your way from vague positions
to linear features like tracks, ridges and rivers that will subsequently
guide you to known points.
If this wasn't the case then you'd basically be stuck if you /ever/ lost
touch with your exact location in poor visibility.

Quoted message said:

A GPS is heavier, needs batteries and more practise and
familiarisation. It will tell you where you are and where the next
waypoint is, subject to your skill at programming it from the map. I
seem to recall that GPS compasses are not terribly reliable, certainly
not as good as a magnetised needle?

I've not heard that, and I don't see any particular reason for it. Main
problem is, ISTM, that they munch batteries a lot quicker than plain use
GPS.

Quoted message said:

The map, though, *is* your bible and should always be carried and used.

Often the case, but there's plenty of walking to be had where a map is
basically pretty pointless. If you can get lost on the Circuit of Loch
Muick, even if they took the signs away, then a map would only confuse
you anyway...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Norman <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Using a map and a compass requires a certain degree of skill to effect
a safe outcome. It is easy when you know how. It is an art that
separates those that can from those that can't. In other words an
elitist group.

Quoted message said:

ps dont all laugh at once.

I'm laffin,' and I have 3 GPSRs, but I certainly think that map reading
and basic compass use is a <good idea> even if the principal navigation
method you use is a GPS.

However, I am happy to be elite if you insist.

PS: You forgot to mention waxed jackets.
--
Gordon Harris

Alan Dicey <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I am most likely to use the compass at the start or end of a walk, to
make sure of following the right of way through the farmer's fields and
finding gates or stiles. In lowland rambles I have had to use the
compass to point me across a pasture or ploughed field to find the
crossing point at the far boundary. I'm not sure a GPS would be much
help in those situations.

Actually, this is exactly what my GPS helps out with, because our walks
are less ambitious nowadays, of physical necessity, and for much of the
time, navigation is a matter of adhering to the ROW.
I always upload useful way points before a walk, and these are placed at
path junctions and wall crossings, so I have a bee-line course across
large fields already available, just as you use the compass heading.

Quoted message said:

The map, though, *is* your bible and should always be carried and used.

I always do, except on regular walks where I am on familiar ground.
--
Gordon Harris

Peter Clinch said:

Alan Dicey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A GPS is heavier, needs batteries and more practise and
familiarisation. It will tell you where you are and where the next
waypoint is, subject to your skill at programming it from the map. I
seem to recall that GPS compasses are not terribly reliable, certainly
not as good as a magnetised needle?

Quoted message said:

I've not heard that, and I don't see any particular reason for it. Main
problem is, ISTM, that they munch batteries a lot quicker than plain use
GPS.

The cheap Garmin electronic compasses as provided in such as Geko 301,
Summit, Vista, 60CS, etc. are accurate to within 2 degrees if held
reasonably horizontal, and you calibrated them last time you changed
the batteries. Unlike magnetic compasses, they don't jam up and
obviously stop working if held non-horizontal, they simply give daft
readings. Some of them do warn you if the unit isn't horizontal when
using the compass.

They do munch up the batteries very quickly if you leave them set on
the factory settings, which leaves the compass on most of the time.
If you read the manual you discover that it's quite easy to switch the
compass on when you want it, and off when you don't. There are also
automatic compass switch on and off options which you can set to do
things like switch it on when you're stationary and switch it off
when you're moving.

If you only have the compass switched on when you actually want to use
it, it makes damn all difference to battery use.

The fact that so many people complain so much about the compass eating
the batteries is a nice simple demonstration that hardly anyone
bothers to read the manual :-)
--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In article <[email hidden]>, nickl
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

do get a bit fed up with the Luddites

Quoted message said:

poo-poohing new tech'

To be honest I have not seen much knocking of GPS here. What I have seen
is sensible discussions about where a GPS fits in with navigation. Some
people like to follow the GPS all the time and have everything
pre-programmed in but others like to primarily use the map.

They key to good navigation is understanding the map. Thereafter the
methods and tools you use are largely a matter of personal preference
and may change with the situation.

Over the years I have followed the map, GPS, the sun, the moon, stars, a
compass and even other people. All but the last have proved reliable and
are still appropriate in the right circumstances.

I love GPS and was amazed when I first saw it in action back in 1990.
Then we had a brick sized receiver, costing thousands of pounds, eating
8 AAs in a few hours which could only compute a position for about six
hours of the day (the constellation of satellites was far from
complete). It was still amazing that the brick could tell us where we
were - Calanscio Sand Sea in Libya looking for black gold.

Quoted message said:

- what about Goretex etc! Bet they wear that

Quoted message said:

whilst knocking new advances!

Personally I prefer no shell or Pertex unless the weather is really foul
;-)

--

Dominic Sexton

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:19:04 +0000, Andy Champ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The
GPS is far easier, but IMHO less accurate.

Than taking bearings and drawing lines on the map? Surely not!
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

Paul Rooney said:

You shouldn't be getting errors that big, Andy.

I'm still wondering. It's the way it crashes if you download a route of
over 30 points that annoys me. (to which BTW Magellan say "It is
normal. In the Sportrak you can download until 20 routes."😉 Or the way
I haven't yet managed to get it to sync up correctly with MemoryMap on
the laptop in the car for any length of time. (My son and I had it
working perfectly in the carpark on the M40 services the other day. By
the petrol station the link had broken again...)

Mind, thinking about it, 100m is the normal accuracy for the grid refs I
always used to give people...

Andy.