Basic navigational skills badly missing

In article <[email hidden]>, Rudi Winter
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

I had been there a few days, previously and had built a small cairn
for future use, the cairn was about 2 ft dia and 2 ft high, situated
about 1.5 km south of the summit of Fan Brycheiniog. This is a vast
open moorland, completely featureless.

And with grass-covered swallow holes in the ground. That would be fun
in a whiteout!

Quoted message said:

The GPS took me to the cairn
faultlessly even though my route had to twist and turn round bits of bog
etc.

True Rudi, but entirely hypothetical seeing as I went in the summer with
no fog, and by the way there are no swallow holes south of Fan
Brycheiniog. The Limestone is much further south nearer Sinc Giedd.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

SteveO said:

Roger, do you get off on trying to rubbish other people by taking
obtuse perspectives and twisting to present yourself in the best
light? Your stupid attempt at trying to catch Paul out, now you're
arguing the veracity of differing publishers?

<PLONK>
--

Paul Rooney

AndyP said:

"Peewiglet" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I notice you (like Pete) have entirely avoided this part of my post:

Quoted message said:

I can't see any point in attributing to people words they didn't
actually use, and proceeding to build some sort of argument on the
basis of those words that were never used, unless the intention is to
try to distort in some way the meaning of what was originally said.
Why not just stick to the words that are used?

Do you have a view on that? That's the point I was making.

Why not just assume people misinterpret things and put different emphasis
into what others post on occasion? I'm sure the whole world isn't really
out to get you.

Given that she's just been attacked from the side by a mad driver,
perhaps paranoia is justified!
--

Paul Rooney

Roger said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Daytona <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So take off your blinkers for a moment

Quoted message said:

How patronising. I'm simply not prepared to make the same assumptions
that you are.

What's up? Dug your hole so deep you can't see any way out?

How arrogant. Read what I said.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and tell us where in the sequence
of phone calls you would place the one that provoked Anonymous to say
"WHY couldn't they even tell which direction they were faceing down hill
untill they indicated the direction of the wind" and what you think he
actually meant by it.

Can't answer or won't answer?

Can't answer because as I said above "I'm simply not prepared to make
the same assumptions that you are."

Daytona

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

Surely this is in contradiction of road casualty stats, which show
that fatalities have fallen over the years?

Have a look at http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/SeatbeltLaws.html
for starters. Googling with "Isles report" as a term will turn up
plenty more (though not the report itself, since it was suppressed...)

Pete.

Yes but:

News Release 2005/0075:
30 June 2005

LOWEST ROAD DEATHS
The number of people killed on Britain's roads in 2004 was the lowest
figure since records began in 1926, figures published by the Department
for Transport today show.

In 2004, 3,221 people died in road accidents, down 287 or 8% on the
figures from 2003 when 3,508 people were killed. This is despite an
estimated increase in road traffic of 2 per cent in 2004.
--
Gordon Harris

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

Quoted message said:

Are you against wearing crash helmets?

This has prompted me to inform those that don't know.

Talking about hard harts used by climbers - if ever they use DEET for
the midges, for goodness sake don't let the stuff get on the hats. It
reduces the strength by about 70% with no visible effect on the hat.

--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

"Gordon" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Are you against wearing crash helmets?

I am. But hey, I'm Dutch so who cares ? Wooden shoes but no helmet. Daft !

--
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net

The message <[email hidden]>
from Daytona <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>So take off your blinkers for a moment

Quoted message said:

How patronising. I'm simply not prepared to make the same assumptions
that you are.

What's up? Dug your hole so deep you can't see any way out?

Quoted message said:

How arrogant. Read what I said.

I have. You're the numpty who said I had misunderstood the situation
while ignoring what I actually wrote not once but thrice and in doing so
ignoring part of what your primary informant said because it conflicted
with your take on the subject.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>and tell us where in the sequence
>of phone calls you would place the one that provoked Anonymous to say
>"WHY couldn't they even tell which direction they were faceing down hill
>untill they indicated the direction of the wind" and what you think he
>actually meant by it.

Can't answer or won't answer?

Quoted message said:

Can't answer because as I said above "I'm simply not prepared to make
the same assumptions that you are."

Still digging your hole. You are not required to make the same
assumptions at all. All I asked were 2 simple questions that even a 10
year old should be able to answer.

1. Where in the sequence of phone calls would you place the one that
provoked Anonymous to say
"WHY couldn't they even tell which direction they were faceing down hill
untill they indicated the direction of the wind".

2. What you think he actually meant by it.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

The message <[email hidden]>
from Gordon <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

News Release 2005/0075:
30 June 2005

Quoted message said:

LOWEST ROAD DEATHS
The number of people killed on Britain's roads in 2004 was the lowest
figure since records began in 1926, figures published by the Department
for Transport today show.

Quoted message said:

In 2004, 3,221 people died in road accidents, down 287 or 8% on the
figures from 2003 when 3,508 people were killed. This is despite an
estimated increase in road traffic of 2 per cent in 2004.

I can't find the figures atm* but ISTR that the year on year accident
figures have been drifting down fairly consistently from a peak in the
60s but 8% seems a large variation for a curve that was (when I looked
at in in 2002) getting shallow. However IIRC it bottomed out at about
2200 pa (or was it 2800?) many years in the future.

*Can anyone point me to where the government hides such statistics
please as I have lost the link. I have found some figures I extracted
which (as perhaps expected) does not show the decline in quite the same
light.

If I have interpreted my own figures correctly deaths from 1998 were as
follows:

1998 3421
1999 3423 ( Hardly the advert for speed )
2000 3409 ( cameras they are supposed )
2001 3450 ( to be even without 2003 )
2002 3431

So 3508 for 2003 was as much an anomaly as 3221 was for 2004. I wonder
what 2005 will bring what with the increase in deaths from police
involved accidents.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:19:32 -0000
in <news:[email hidden]>
Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Dominic Sexton said:

Oh come on Paul. You are saying a GPS is essential in risky navigation
conditions.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in potentially risky navigation
situations it would be a very good idea to carry one, especially for those
who's navigation skills are not that good.

If you are a skilled compass navigator and you know you can handle the
conditions, fine, no problem. But this thread is about some navigational
"numpties" (for want of a better term) who put themselves in a potentially
risky situation.

All part of their learning experience. Granted, it might be considered
that the group that were the source of the thread have chosen a slightly
steeper than average learning curve. I just hope that (a) they managed
to learn something (good) out of the experience (b) they will continue
to learn (c) they have made their gratitude felt with suitable donations
to the relevant MRTs.

Quoted message said:

In hindsight it's easy to see that carrying a GPS would
have been a good idea, although it probably wasn't so obvious beforehand.

As far as I can see there is nothing to suggest in the reports that they
wouldn't have needed rescuing if they had. Granted, it *may* have
reduced the chances of intervention. But nothing is certain.

--
He was completely wrong (and probably still up there, if his map
reading skills are anything to go by!).
[Langdale & Ambleside MRT callout report]

Bootlaces said:

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:19:32 -0000
in <news:[email hidden]>
Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Dominic Sexton said:

Oh come on Paul. You are saying a GPS is essential in risky navigation
conditions.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in potentially risky navigation
situations it would be a very good idea to carry one, especially for those
who's navigation skills are not that good.

If you are a skilled compass navigator and you know you can handle the
conditions, fine, no problem. But this thread is about some navigational
"numpties" (for want of a better term) who put themselves in a potentially
risky situation.

All part of their learning experience. Granted, it might be considered
that the group that were the source of the thread have chosen a slightly
steeper than average learning curve. I just hope that (a) they managed
to learn something (good) out of the experience (b) they will continue
to learn (c) they have made their gratitude felt with suitable donations
to the relevant MRTs.

Quoted message said:

In hindsight it's easy to see that carrying a GPS would
have been a good idea, although it probably wasn't so obvious beforehand.

As far as I can see there is nothing to suggest in the reports that they
wouldn't have needed rescuing if they had. Granted, it *may* have
reduced the chances of intervention. But nothing is certain.

They may still have need rescued - but theey'd have been ablt to tell
the MRT where they were instead of having them search the wrong hill!!

druidh

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:50:02 GMT
in <news:[email hidden]>
druidh <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Bootlaces said:

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:19:32 -0000
in <news:[email hidden]>
Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Dominic Sexton wrote:

>Oh come on Paul. You are saying a GPS is essential in risky navigation
>conditions.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in potentially risky navigation
situations it would be a very good idea to carry one, especially for those
who's navigation skills are not that good.

If you are a skilled compass navigator and you know you can handle the
conditions, fine, no problem. But this thread is about some navigational
"numpties" (for want of a better term) who put themselves in a potentially
risky situation.

All part of their learning experience. Granted, it might be considered
that the group that were the source of the thread have chosen a slightly
steeper than average learning curve. I just hope that (a) they managed
to learn something (good) out of the experience (b) they will continue
to learn (c) they have made their gratitude felt with suitable donations
to the relevant MRTs.

Quoted message said:

In hindsight it's easy to see that carrying a GPS would
have been a good idea, although it probably wasn't so obvious beforehand.

As far as I can see there is nothing to suggest in the reports that they
wouldn't have needed rescuing if they had. Granted, it *may* have
reduced the chances of intervention. But nothing is certain.

They may still have need rescued - but theey'd have been ablt to tell
the MRT where they were instead of having them search the wrong hill!!

<pedant>
I am not being wholely understanding your engihs/tiping
</>

In any case - you are making assumptions. Strong assumptions, maybe, but
assumptions none-the-less.

--
Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.

Bootlaces said:

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 21:50:02 GMT
in <news:[email hidden]>
druidh <[email hidden]> wrote :

Quoted message said:

Bootlaces said:

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:19:32 -0000
in <news:[email hidden]>
Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> wrote :

>Dominic Sexton wrote:
>
>
>
>>Oh come on Paul. You are saying a GPS is essential in risky navigation
>>conditions.
>
>No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that in potentially risky navigation
>situations it would be a very good idea to carry one, especially for those
>who's navigation skills are not that good.
>
>If you are a skilled compass navigator and you know you can handle the
>conditions, fine, no problem. But this thread is about some navigational
>"numpties" (for want of a better term) who put themselves in a potentially
>risky situation.

All part of their learning experience. Granted, it might be considered
that the group that were the source of the thread have chosen a slightly
steeper than average learning curve. I just hope that (a) they managed
to learn something (good) out of the experience (b) they will continue
to learn (c) they have made their gratitude felt with suitable donations
to the relevant MRTs.

>In hindsight it's easy to see that carrying a GPS would
>have been a good idea, although it probably wasn't so obvious beforehand.

As far as I can see there is nothing to suggest in the reports that they
wouldn't have needed rescuing if they had. Granted, it *may* have
reduced the chances of intervention. But nothing is certain.

They may still have need rescued - but theey'd have been ablt to tell
the MRT where they were instead of having them search the wrong hill!!

<pedant>
I am not being wholely understanding your engihs/tiping
</>

In any case - you are making assumptions. Strong assumptions, maybe, but
assumptions none-the-less.

The only assumption I'm making is that if they'd had a GPS, they'd have
been able to read a GR from it, thus directing the MRT to the right place.

druidh

Gordon said:

LOWEST ROAD DEATHS
The number of people killed on Britain's roads in 2004 was the lowest
figure since records began in 1926, figures published by the Department
for Transport today show.

This isn't actually conradicting what I said. Downward trends have
existed for years which is how how we've got where we are now.
However, there was an unfortunate blip in cyclist and pedestrian
casualties with compulsory seatbelts. So things might be even
better...

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/

Gordon said:

Are you against wearing crash helmets?

No, but I am against promoting them with basically wrong information.

There is no conclusive evidence they'll save you from more than
superficial injury (look at www.cyclehelmets.org for more) yet they
are pushed as lifesavers. Interesting that the firms that make
them don't push them that way, because they know all about the spec
they're made to!

Quoted message said:

They have certainly improved
technically and in appearance since they first appeared

Mainly to improve the venting and comfort, rather than the degree
of protection, which is built down to a spec. That spec is usually
EN1078 which is actually *inferior* to the previous specs widely
used. The new spec was dreamed up by... the manufacturers!

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/

"Peewiglet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 14:12:49 -0000, "AndyP"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Why not just assume people misinterpret things and put different emphasis
into what others post on occasion? I'm sure the whole world isn't really
out to get you.

??

I don't imagine the whole world is out to get me, or even that anyone
at all is out to get me. I don't seem to have a problem communicating
anywhere else, though. I think that's probably because in other places
conversations progress on the basis of what people have actually said.

Why jump in and say that, anyway? "I'm sure the whole world isn't
really out to get you". If you were trying to upset me then
congratulations: you have, and I've had enough. If you weren't trying
to upset me, and actually give a toss, then maybe you could resist
jumping in with gratuitous sarcasm like that to someone else in the
future. If you simply don't give a toss then presumably you stopped
reading before I got this far.

Bye.

No I wasn't trying to upset you. I've never tried to upset anyone in any
walk of life. I just thought that maybe if someone suggested that what you
saw as deliberate distortion of your words was just genuine misunderstanding
then you might step back, think "hmm.. maybe I'm not being fair here" and
save yourself some time and irritation in needless arguments.

(Note to Self: Stop trying to help grumpy Usenet people and watch Pingu DVDs
instead).

The "gratuitous sarcasm" (as in the previous sentence presumably) is just
meant to amuse. Personally, I read these kind of things for entertainment
as much as a means of getting information and as such I think this group has
some interesting characters. I'm just trying to make my posts worthwhile
reading and certainly not trying to attack anyone personally. I hope by
"I've had enough" you don't mean you're off because I'm sure you'd be
disappointing a large fanclub and the group would be the poorer for it.

Can I send you a Pingu DVD to cheer you up?

Chris Malcolm said:

Garmin still haven't updated their general advertising of the Etrex
series because they're still selling off the old models in the US, but
in fact in the UK the shops seem to be stocking the new updated
models. In the case of the basic yellow Etrex this means that it now
has WAAS, 10,000 trackpoints, 20 routes, a configurable trip
parameters page, much longer battery life, etc..

Flippin' 'eck! That sounds good. For most of the use I have for it,
my original Etrex is great but I wish I could put in more than one
route before I start a multi-day trip.

Also, when I have done long walks the start of the track has been
overwritten which is disappointing when I download the track onto
MemoryMap afterwards.

Even at £60 (in a sale), though, I don't think I need bother getting a
new one. It tells me where I am if I have neglected to pay proper
attention to the map, and it allows me retrace most walks afterwards.

Judith

AndyP said:

(Note to Self: Stop trying to help grumpy Usenet people and watch Pingu DVDs
instead).

Ooh goody! I haven't watched my Pingu video for AGES!

*Nobody* can misinterpret what *Pingu* says!

Judith

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Can I send you a Pingu DVD to cheer you up?

You can send one to me any time if it's not wanted elsewhere (except
that I've probably got all the available episodes on video already).
Pingu is wonderful! And not at all like any child I've ever known, oh
no. Much. *Chuckle*

--
To reply see 'from' in headers; lose the domain, and insert dots and @
where common sense dictates.

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

AndyP said:

(Note to Self: Stop trying to help grumpy Usenet people and watch Pingu DVDs
instead).

Ooh goody! I haven't watched my Pingu video for AGES!

*Nobody* can misinterpret what *Pingu* says!

<complicated sound made with beak pushed right forward as far as it will
go> waaaap waaaap!

--
To reply see 'from' in headers; lose the domain, and insert dots and @
where common sense dictates.