Basic navigational skills badly missing

The message <[email hidden]>
from "W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Hi Rudi - I believe Roger has walked there on those very conditions and
missed the Vampire wreck by a few yards. Not nice.

Not in a whiteout, just thick mist. Made a change trying to visit most
of the wreck sites in the area. The grid ref for the Vampire wasn't good
enough in the circumstances and IIRC all I found on on the summit of
Moel Feity was a few ounces of aluminium.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The
swallow holes aren't actually that far away but quite a bit lower down.
It makes a good circular from Glyntawe to Fan Brycheiniog - one way through
the holey bit and then back along Fan Hir or vice versa. There's one nasty
stream crossing though (Afon Twrch).

Quoted message said:

Yes indeed. It was Fran I think asked about the Sink holes some time
ago, and as you say the area is pockmarked with them with some being
very deep. The river of which you speak I believe is the Afon Haffes
near the Gwyn Arms - a bit further up the valley from the Show caves.

Quoted message said:

Normally the Haffes is just a load of boulders to cross without much
water

It could have been the Twrch which ISTR is quite a river in its lower
reaches. I don't recall any problems with it on the uplands but I don't
usually stray that far across the bundu.

Fran was querying swallow/shake hole differences. A shake hole is a
blind hole. A swallow hole aka sink hole is one into which a stream
disappears.

--
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)

[quote="214Fells"]Simplistic scenarios

[A] One person reading this thread purchased a GPS and subsequently
their life was saved due to giving an exact coordinate would it be
worth £100?

[B] One person dies when it could be proved that a GPS may have
assisted their rescue?

How's your conscience????[/quote]

Since it's quite simple to come up with some hypothetical simplistic
situation not backed up by any useful number of actual instances where
someone gets /into/ trouble with a GPS, my conscience is feeling pretty
good so far.

It wouldn't be feeling too great if I was putting people off the hills
by making them out to be more dangerous than the track record suggests
they really are or getting them to spend money they'd rather not be
spending and which the track record suggests they needn't. If they want
to spend the money for safety reasons that's fine by me, but I don't
want the safety issues pushed onto folk with more urgency than is
particularly necessary. Hillwalking /is/ potentially fatal so we can't
play down safety altogether, but I see it as bad to push it more than
necessary, so while advising on the perils of getting lost is one thing,
saying you're daft not to spend a fair sum of money on a GPS unit is
quite another, because there are ways of not getting lost that cost less
and have a good record.

I'm not trying to argue that everyone should feel the same way I do, but
I /do/ feel strongly and am pointing out exactly why so anyone still
following can hopefully see I'm not arguing just for the sake of arguing
in this case. My feeling is people have not understood *why* I'm
arguing, and I wish to clarify. If I thought GPS was a Bad Thing, Period
then my gear drawer wouldn't have an eTrex in it, but it does...

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/

W. D. Grey said:

[rudi:]

Quoted message said:

The
swallow holes aren't actually that far away but quite a bit lower down.
It makes a good circular from Glyntawe to Fan Brycheiniog - one way through
the holey bit and then back along Fan Hir or vice versa. There's one nasty
stream crossing though (Afon Twrch).

Yes indeed. It was Fran I think asked about the Sink holes some time
ago, and as you say the area is pockmarked with them with some being
very deep. The river of which you speak I believe is the Afon Haffes
near the Gwyn Arms - a bit further up the valley from the Show caves.

No, I didn't mean that one. The Afon Twrch is crossed at the western end
of the limestone area, SW of Fan Brycheiniog. It says "Ford" on the map
but it's just a point where the river is a bit wider and has a little island.

Quoted message said:

Normally the Haffes is just a load of boulders to cross without much
water

Do you mean below the quarried bits? But then you're almost back at
the road?

The BBC reports about a waterfall rescue training day and public demonstration
at the waterfalls near Ystradfellte. Were you involved in that one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4495746.stm
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

Fran said:

<Waves> It certainly was. Someone (you? Paul?) had mentioned them and
I was having difficulty working out what on earth they were. IIRC there
were two varieties, depending on whether there was a river underneath or
the remains of one descending from the surface. Or something.

That rings a bell. That must have been one of the first threads I've
read here, but I didn't post then. Was it swallow holes being created
by surface water or streams etching away the limestone and sink holes are
caves whose ceilings crack and tumble down?
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

AndyP said:

Hmm.... I've always been able to look at a map and instantly get a rough
idea of what to expect on the ground which I've always thought of as a
talent you've either got or you haven't rather than a skill that can be
learnt or lost through lack of use but I only think "that's a steep slope"
rather than "that's a 60 degree slope". So if I wanted to do it to that
amount of detail for avalanche assessment or something it would be something
I'd have to think about and do a bit of maths for before it became second
nature, yes.

That's similar for me: there is a certain contour line density on a 1:25k
OS map that makes me look for alternatives. If it's rocky or there is a
path that is of course a different matter. I tend not too pay sufficient
attention to vegetation symbols on the maps; rough grassland and tussocky
moorland are very similar symbols but quite different underfoot.
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales

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

Quoted message said:

No, I didn't mean that one. The Afon Twrch is crossed at the western end
of the limestone area, SW of Fan Brycheiniog. It says "Ford" on the map
but it's just a point where the river is a bit wider and has a little island.

Grid Ref: SN 802 197

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Normally the Haffes is just a load of boulders to cross without much
water

Do you mean below the quarried bits? But then you're almost back at
the road?

I'm not sure about quarried bits - the one I meant was at SN 842 167

the other river crossing near Sinc Giedd at SN 812 167 shown Ford on the
map is indeed the Giedd.

Quoted message said:

The BBC reports about a waterfall rescue training day and public demonstration
at the waterfalls near Ystradfellte. Were you involved in that one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/4495746.stm

My involvement was minimal as a support member of the team. It was a
long day made more interesting by the arrival of the Sea King around
mid-day to winch up "casualties"

Thanks for the link - I knew the BBC were involved but had no idea if
there would be any TV items.

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

The Reid said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed, if you want that kind of excitement.

I do!

You can still have it then. Nothing stopping you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What may otherwise be an enjoyable
navigation challenge can sometimes be a pain in the [censored].

True, sometimes being lost is a pain in the [censored] but you feel all
the better for the experience back in the pub

But not if you end up having to call the MRT or end up dead, which is
probably my point. With a GPS you can choose to end the "exciting
experience" at a sensible point and finish off with an uneventful return to
the car. But at least you get to live! Or at least stay out of the papers
and end up being criticised by the dreaded MRT! ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The introduction
of GPS wipes out a whole load of skills

No it doesn't. You've still got those skills, you don't suddenly
forget.

My point is that you no longer need to use them, they are
redundant.

But you can still choose to use them if you wish. No-one's stopping you.
But in the sense that car owners no longer need horse riding skills then
yes, they *are* redundant. Who nowadays really feels any need to ride
horses now that we have cars?

I stress need, rather than want.

Quoted message said:

Not having them is now not a block on somebody
navigating cloud covered complex hills. Part of the game has been
taken away by technology.

But is that really such a bad thing? It's called progress. Nowadays I can
drive to London in a car in a matter of hours (with zero navigation skills
as it happens), whereas years ago it was an adventure that took many days,
riding horses or being a stage coach passenger, being subject to all the
vagaries of the weather and having to overnight in numerous establishments
enroute.

I'm sure that in some respects that was probably a far more interesting and
enjoyable an experience, but for most people nowadays, who simply want to
get to London as quickly as possible, how many really feel a need to
experience all that? You can still walk to London if you choose, but the
experience wouldn't be the same. Things have changed, time has moved on, as
it always does.

Even if you did ride a horse to London, you wouldn't get the same
experience. The infrastructure has changed, the culture has changed,
people's attitudes have changed, as they always do, and always will. This
is the nature of the evolution of civilisation.

You *could* navigate from Norway to the Orkneys using one of those ancient
sun-compasses. You *could* go on a hill walk navigating by one of those
magnetic compass thingies, that were in vogue once. But most people would
probably look strangely at you and ask "are you doing an historical
documentary for TV?" Except that they'd probably use the word "a" instead
of "an" because grammmatical correctness is subject to evolutionary
development too. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At the extreme, you could do what Phil and I did on the Moelwyns,

Quoted message said:

now that's what I call navigating!

It was fun too, up to a point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point is that
with a GPS you have options, you can make it as hard or as easy as
you like. It only takes the challenge away if you allow it to.

I disagree, if you have a GPS in your pocket you will use it when
it gets difficult.

Agreed, but the meaning of the word difficult varies from person to person.
Your average navigational numpty will no doubt take out the GPS at the
merest hint of the slightest potential navigational uncertainty, whereas the
veteran "hard man of the mountains" will no doubt wade through rivers, drag
themselves through bogs and stumble over countless rocky crags for many
miles until they reach a state of severe exhaustion and almost complete
collapse, before even considering the possibility that the electronic device
in the bottom of their rucksacks might be even remotely useful in their
situation.

I'd guess that after being winched to safety, flown for a hundred miles to
the nearest hospital, Peter Clinch would probably wait until he was lying on
the hospital bed before switching on his eTrex to find out "Oh, so that's
where I am".

Sorry Peter! ;-)

Quoted message said:

Eventually, lost walkers without one will be
criticised by mountain rescue.

This is what I don't want to happen. I did say that I don't like them
criticising bad navigational ability, but not criticising lack of GPS. But
when I said that, I didn't mean that I wanted them to criticise lack of GPS.
I just thought it unfair that they criticised lack of one set of skills
(traditional) but not the other (modern). I'd prefer it if they criticised
neither.

To touch on Peter's rant about cycle helmets, one could argue that the MRTs
tendency to criticise walkers that they rescue, may in itself be a factor
that could dissuade walkers from heading out onto the hills. Perhaps that's
their intention? But it may be better if instead of criticising the
victim's lack of skills, they were instead to make positive suggestions as
to what they might have done differently? So as to encourage different
behaviour in the future, rather than simply condemning what has been done in
the past.

Paul

Paul Saunders said:

The Reid wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not having them is now not a block on somebody
navigating cloud covered complex hills. Part of the game has been
taken away by technology.

Quoted message said:

But is that really such a bad thing? It's called progress. Nowadays I can
drive to London in a car in a matter of hours (with zero navigation skills
as it happens), whereas years ago it was an adventure that took many days,
riding horses or being a stage coach passenger, being subject to all the
vagaries of the weather and having to overnight in numerous establishments
enroute.

That is a practical example though, and recreational walking isn't a
practical thing. Other drivers drive round and round in circles for two
hours and get precisely nowhere. They could have achieved the same car
position effect for less money by simply not starting the engine, but
that's not really the point of motor racing... If one of your /things/
in the hills happens to be, say, self reliance, then having a crutch you
can lean on at any point removes some of that. It's like a mobile
'phone doesn't /have/ to be used, but it can nonetheless affect one's
experience of isolation just by being in the bag. While that doesn't
bother a lot of people, that doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't bother
anyone.

Quoted message said:

You *could* navigate from Norway to the Orkneys using one of those ancient
sun-compasses. You *could* go on a hill walk navigating by one of those
magnetic compass thingies, that were in vogue once. But most people would
probably look strangely at you and ask "are you doing an historical
documentary for TV?" Except that they'd probably use the word "a" instead
of "an" because grammmatical correctness is subject to evolutionary
development too. ;-)

But like some people race in vintage cars, the point is about personal
pleasure on your own terms, not what our technological society has
progressed to a higher optimum. Unless someone wants to do something
downright dangerous I don't think it's anybody's lookout to pass
editorial public comment on their state of mind in such a way that might
discourage their source of pleasure.

The easiest way to navigate up Snowdon is sit on the train and let the
track do the work for you. So much less physical effort too, and after
all, you only need to throw some money at the situation and you'll get
to the top with no trouble. So that /must/ be the best way to go,
right? Well, of course not!

You're arguing about practical optimisation, and nobody's really
disagreeing with that. But if you want practical optimisation of
everything then there are numerous occasions when it makes no sense
whatsoever to be on foot. The point being argued is that in an activity
based on fundamental freedom to do one's own thing then saying what
tools you must use reduces the freedom and consequently reduces the
basic point for some.

Quoted message said:

Agreed, but the meaning of the word difficult varies from person to person.
Your average navigational numpty will no doubt take out the GPS at the
merest hint of the slightest potential navigational uncertainty, whereas the
veteran "hard man of the mountains" will no doubt wade through rivers, drag
themselves through bogs and stumble over countless rocky crags for many
miles until they reach a state of severe exhaustion and almost complete
collapse, before even considering the possibility that the electronic device
in the bottom of their rucksacks might be even remotely useful in their
situation.

See above for the comment on mobile phones. It does make a difference
to the experience merely having it there, and if someone for whatever
personal reason prefers not to have it there then any degree of
insistence that they do have it (including mild censure for not having
it) there is diminishing their pleasure. And that is Not Good IMHO.

Quoted message said:

I'd guess that after being winched to safety, flown for a hundred miles to
the nearest hospital, Peter Clinch would probably wait until he was lying on
the hospital bed before switching on his eTrex to find out "Oh, so that's
where I am".

Sorry Peter! ;-)

I'm not /nearly/ that hard. But some people are, and I don't want their
pleasures diminished, and I don't want an upcoming generation of walkers
never to have the opportunity to find that pleasure for themselves, if
it's one they happen to respond to. (And I doubt you'll get very good
signal reception in Raigmore A&E... ;-))

Quoted message said:

This is what I don't want to happen.

Which is why I'd like folk to stop doing things that may force them into
people's hands that wouldn't otherwise have bothered with them.

Quoted message said:

To touch on Peter's rant about cycle helmets, one could argue that the MRTs
tendency to criticise walkers that they rescue, may in itself be a factor
that could dissuade walkers from heading out onto the hills. Perhaps that's
their intention? But it may be better if instead of criticising the
victim's lack of skills, they were instead to make positive suggestions as
to what they might have done differently? So as to encourage different
behaviour in the future, rather than simply condemning what has been done in
the past.

I think the criticism thing is being over-egged here. Have a look at
the MRT article in the current TGO. For the individual that wrote it,
and presumably the team he works in, rapping over the knuckles is up to
the police, not the MRT.

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/

Paul Saunders said:

The Reid wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not having them is now not a block on somebody
navigating cloud covered complex hills. Part of the game has been
taken away by technology.

Quoted message said:

But is that really such a bad thing? It's called progress. Nowadays I can
drive to London in a car in a matter of hours (with zero navigation skills
as it happens), whereas years ago it was an adventure that took many days,
riding horses or being a stage coach passenger, being subject to all the
vagaries of the weather and having to overnight in numerous establishments
enroute.

That is a practical example though, and recreational walking isn't a
practical thing. Other drivers drive round and round in circles for two
hours and get precisely nowhere. They could have achieved the same car
position effect for less money by simply not starting the engine, but
that's not really the point of motor racing... If one of your /things/
in the hills happens to be, say, self reliance, then having a crutch you
can lean on at any point removes some of that. It's like a mobile
'phone doesn't /have/ to be used, but it can nonetheless affect one's
experience of isolation just by being in the bag. While that doesn't
bother a lot of people, that doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't bother
anyone.

Quoted message said:

You *could* navigate from Norway to the Orkneys using one of those ancient
sun-compasses. You *could* go on a hill walk navigating by one of those
magnetic compass thingies, that were in vogue once. But most people would
probably look strangely at you and ask "are you doing an historical
documentary for TV?" Except that they'd probably use the word "a" instead
of "an" because grammmatical correctness is subject to evolutionary
development too. ;-)

But like some people race in vintage cars, the point is about personal
pleasure on your own terms, not what our technological society has
progressed to a higher optimum. Unless someone wants to do something
downright dangerous I don't think it's anybody's lookout to pass
editorial public comment on their state of mind in such a way that might
discourage their source of pleasure.

The easiest way to navigate up Snowdon is sit on the train and let the
track do the work for you. So much less physical effort too, and after
all, you only need to throw some money at the situation and you'll get
to the top with no trouble. So that /must/ be the best way to go,
right? Well, of course not!

You're arguing about practical optimisation, and nobody's really
disagreeing with that. But if you want practical optimisation of
everything then there are numerous occasions when it makes no sense
whatsoever to be on foot. The point being argued is that in an activity
based on fundamental freedom to do one's own thing then saying what
tools you must use reduces the freedom and consequently reduces the
basic point for some.

Quoted message said:

Agreed, but the meaning of the word difficult varies from person to person.
Your average navigational numpty will no doubt take out the GPS at the
merest hint of the slightest potential navigational uncertainty, whereas the
veteran "hard man of the mountains" will no doubt wade through rivers, drag
themselves through bogs and stumble over countless rocky crags for many
miles until they reach a state of severe exhaustion and almost complete
collapse, before even considering the possibility that the electronic device
in the bottom of their rucksacks might be even remotely useful in their
situation.

See above for the comment on mobile phones. It does make a difference
to the experience merely having it there, and if someone for whatever
personal reason prefers not to have it there then any degree of
insistence that they do have it (including mild censure for not having
it) there is diminishing their pleasure. And that is Not Good IMHO.

Quoted message said:

I'd guess that after being winched to safety, flown for a hundred miles to
the nearest hospital, Peter Clinch would probably wait until he was lying on
the hospital bed before switching on his eTrex to find out "Oh, so that's
where I am".

Sorry Peter! ;-)

I'm not /nearly/ that hard. But some people are, and I don't want their
pleasures diminished, and I don't want an upcoming generation of walkers
never to have the opportunity to find that pleasure for themselves, if
it's one they happen to respond to. (And I doubt you'll get very good
signal reception in Raigmore A&E... ;-))

Quoted message said:

This is what I don't want to happen.

Which is why I'd like folk to stop doing things that may force them into
people's hands that wouldn't otherwise have bothered with them.

Quoted message said:

To touch on Peter's rant about cycle helmets, one could argue that the MRTs
tendency to criticise walkers that they rescue, may in itself be a factor
that could dissuade walkers from heading out onto the hills. Perhaps that's
their intention? But it may be better if instead of criticising the
victim's lack of skills, they were instead to make positive suggestions as
to what they might have done differently? So as to encourage different
behaviour in the future, rather than simply condemning what has been done in
the past.

I think the criticism thing is being over-egged here. Have a look at
the MRT article in the current TGO. For the individual that wrote it,
and presumably the team he works in, rapping over the knuckles is up to
the police, not the MRT.

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/

Paul Saunders said:

The Reid wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not having them is now not a block on somebody
navigating cloud covered complex hills. Part of the game has been
taken away by technology.

Quoted message said:

But is that really such a bad thing? It's called progress. Nowadays I can
drive to London in a car in a matter of hours (with zero navigation skills
as it happens), whereas years ago it was an adventure that took many days,
riding horses or being a stage coach passenger, being subject to all the
vagaries of the weather and having to overnight in numerous establishments
enroute.

That is a practical example though, and recreational walking isn't a
practical thing. Other drivers drive round and round in circles for two
hours and get precisely nowhere. They could have achieved the same car
position effect for less money by simply not starting the engine, but
that's not really the point of motor racing... If one of your /things/
in the hills happens to be, say, self reliance, then having a crutch you
can lean on at any point removes some of that. It's like a mobile
'phone doesn't /have/ to be used, but it can nonetheless affect one's
experience of isolation just by being in the bag. While that doesn't
bother a lot of people, that doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't bother
anyone.

Quoted message said:

You *could* navigate from Norway to the Orkneys using one of those ancient
sun-compasses. You *could* go on a hill walk navigating by one of those
magnetic compass thingies, that were in vogue once. But most people would
probably look strangely at you and ask "are you doing an historical
documentary for TV?" Except that they'd probably use the word "a" instead
of "an" because grammmatical correctness is subject to evolutionary
development too. ;-)

But like some people race in vintage cars, the point is about personal
pleasure on your own terms, not what our technological society has
progressed to a higher optimum. Unless someone wants to do something
downright dangerous I don't think it's anybody's lookout to pass
editorial public comment on their state of mind in such a way that might
discourage their source of pleasure.

The easiest way to navigate up Snowdon is sit on the train and let the
track do the work for you. So much less physical effort too, and after
all, you only need to throw some money at the situation and you'll get
to the top with no trouble. So that /must/ be the best way to go,
right? Well, of course not!

You're arguing about practical optimisation, and nobody's really
disagreeing with that. But if you want practical optimisation of
everything then there are numerous occasions when it makes no sense
whatsoever to be on foot. The point being argued is that in an activity
based on fundamental freedom to do one's own thing then saying what
tools you must use reduces the freedom and consequently reduces the
basic point for some.

Quoted message said:

Agreed, but the meaning of the word difficult varies from person to person.
Your average navigational numpty will no doubt take out the GPS at the
merest hint of the slightest potential navigational uncertainty, whereas the
veteran "hard man of the mountains" will no doubt wade through rivers, drag
themselves through bogs and stumble over countless rocky crags for many
miles until they reach a state of severe exhaustion and almost complete
collapse, before even considering the possibility that the electronic device
in the bottom of their rucksacks might be even remotely useful in their
situation.

See above for the comment on mobile phones. It does make a difference
to the experience merely having it there, and if someone for whatever
personal reason prefers not to have it there then any degree of
insistence that they do have it (including mild censure for not having
it) there is diminishing their pleasure. And that is Not Good IMHO.

Quoted message said:

I'd guess that after being winched to safety, flown for a hundred miles to
the nearest hospital, Peter Clinch would probably wait until he was lying on
the hospital bed before switching on his eTrex to find out "Oh, so that's
where I am".

Sorry Peter! ;-)

I'm not /nearly/ that hard. But some people are, and I don't want their
pleasures diminished, and I don't want an upcoming generation of walkers
never to have the opportunity to find that pleasure for themselves, if
it's one they happen to respond to. (And I doubt you'll get very good
signal reception in Raigmore A&E... ;-))

Quoted message said:

This is what I don't want to happen.

Which is why I'd like folk to stop doing things that may force them into
people's hands that wouldn't otherwise have bothered with them.

Quoted message said:

To touch on Peter's rant about cycle helmets, one could argue that the MRTs
tendency to criticise walkers that they rescue, may in itself be a factor
that could dissuade walkers from heading out onto the hills. Perhaps that's
their intention? But it may be better if instead of criticising the
victim's lack of skills, they were instead to make positive suggestions as
to what they might have done differently? So as to encourage different
behaviour in the future, rather than simply condemning what has been done in
the past.

I think the criticism thing is being over-egged here. Have a look at
the MRT article in the current TGO. For the individual that wrote it,
and presumably the team he works in, rapping over the knuckles is up to
the police, not the MRT.

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/

Peter Clinch said:

The point being argued is that in an activity
based on fundamental freedom to do one's own thing then saying what
tools you must use reduces the freedom and consequently reduces the
basic point for some.

Following up my own post, I am just as annoyed if people say you /must/
navigate with map and compass. I don't see why folk need to be told how
to have their fun, or be told that they're having their fun the wrong
way (caveat if they'll be ruining someone else's fun, but that's not
really an issue here AFAICT).

Promote GPS all you like by positive statements about what it does well,
fine. But pushing it by saying you're daft or a luddite to use anything
else or that nothing else measures up to the job then we're into
negative campaigning, and there just isn't any need for it.

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/

Peter Clinch said:

The point being argued is that in an activity
based on fundamental freedom to do one's own thing then saying what
tools you must use reduces the freedom and consequently reduces the
basic point for some.

Following up my own post, I am just as annoyed if people say you /must/
navigate with map and compass. I don't see why folk need to be told how
to have their fun, or be told that they're having their fun the wrong
way (caveat if they'll be ruining someone else's fun, but that's not
really an issue here AFAICT).

Promote GPS all you like by positive statements about what it does well,
fine. But pushing it by saying you're daft or a luddite to use anything
else or that nothing else measures up to the job then we're into
negative campaigning, and there just isn't any need for it.

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/

Peter Clinch said:

The point being argued is that in an activity
based on fundamental freedom to do one's own thing then saying what
tools you must use reduces the freedom and consequently reduces the
basic point for some.

Following up my own post, I am just as annoyed if people say you /must/
navigate with map and compass. I don't see why folk need to be told how
to have their fun, or be told that they're having their fun the wrong
way (caveat if they'll be ruining someone else's fun, but that's not
really an issue here AFAICT).

Promote GPS all you like by positive statements about what it does well,
fine. But pushing it by saying you're daft or a luddite to use anything
else or that nothing else measures up to the job then we're into
negative campaigning, and there just isn't any need for it.

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/

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

dreaded MRT! ;-)

<quote>
Proud!
</quote>

<quote>
Arrogant
</quote>

<qoute>
Dreaded
</quote>

What on earth have you got against MRT ??

OK. OK. I saw the slimey (oops! typo) smiley :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes at

07 December 2005 09:38:12

Haven't you guys got any work to do?
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The easiest way to navigate up Snowdon is sit on the train and let the
track do the work for you. So much less physical effort too, and after
all, you only need to throw some money at the situation and you'll get
to the top with no trouble. So that /must/ be the best way to go,
right? Well, of course not!

Bollocks! It depends on your ability. If the train is the only way
you're going to get to the to it's the best way.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

[quote="Peter Clinch"][quote="214Fells"]Simplistic scenarios

[A] One person reading this thread purchased a GPS and subsequently
their life was saved due to giving an exact coordinate would it be
worth £100?

[B] One person dies when it could be proved that a GPS may have
assisted their rescue?

How's your conscience????[/quote]

Since it's quite simple to come up with some hypothetical simplistic
situation not backed up by any useful number of actual instances where
someone gets /into/ trouble with a GPS, my conscience is feeling pretty
good so far.[/quote]

This makes no sense, but then again neither does 214's missive (I've
left it in because I didn't want the phraseology quoted below to be
shown out of context).

Quoted message said:

It wouldn't be feeling too great if I was putting people off the hills
by making them out to be more dangerous than the track record suggests
they really are or getting them to spend money they'd rather not be
spending and which the track record suggests they needn't.

Quoted message said:

Hillwalking /is/ potentially fatal so we can't
play down safety altogether, but I see it as bad to push it more than
necessary, so while advising on the perils of getting lost is one thing,
saying you're daft not to spend a fair sum of money on a GPS unit is
quite another,

Quoted message said:

I'm not trying to argue that everyone should feel the same way I do, but
I /do/ feel strongly and am pointing out exactly why so anyone still
following can hopefully see I'm not arguing just for the sake of arguing
in this case. My feeling is people have not understood *why* I'm
arguing, and I wish to clarify. If I thought GPS was a Bad Thing, Period
then my gear drawer wouldn't have an eTrex in it, but it does...

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The easiest way to navigate up Snowdon is sit on the train and let the
track do the work for you. So much less physical effort too, and
after all, you only need to throw some money at the situation and
you'll get to the top with no trouble. So that /must/ be the best way
to go, right? Well, of course not!

Quoted message said:

Bollocks! It depends on your ability. If the train is the only way
you're going to get to the to it's the best way.

The "of course not!" refers in particular to the "/must/ be the best",
it is not saying the train is the wrong way for any particular person.
So basically we're in agreement that for this sort of thing there is no
predetermined Right best Way for everyone.

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/

SteveO said:

That's fair enough but, ISTM, that you're the only one with the view
that this is even a slight possibility in this instance.

I may well be the one shouting loudest but that's not the same thing.
One could read something similar into some of Dominic's comments, for
example.

Quoted message said:

Right from the very beginning you've taken issue with the use of the
single word "daft", yet:

* you're the one who's extrapolated it to infer that, in using the
word "daft", its being suggested a person is a stupid idiot and that
they're being insulted in this thread

And which Roger picked up a dictionary to find that it might just be I
have something of a point.

Quoted message said:

* you're the one who, in this same thread, has used that same word in
the light-heated manner which is in common usage, that is to chasten
congenially, in the mildest sense.

For example, phrases such as:
- yer daft bugger
- daft ha'peth
- daft banana (as a friend of mine uses with his 7yr old
when he's done' something, well, just daft, as 7yr olds do!)
- daft sausage
- daftie
(add you own here)

None of them are the least bit offensive and neither is "pretty daft",
the original offending phrase in all its glory.

Context can make a lot of things very different. And the context of a
reply to a serious post of Dominic's reading:

"Having said that, and since you've raised the point, I do consider it
pretty daft to go out without one, and if I was a member of an MRT
that had to spend ages searching in dangerous conditions for someone
who could have been located easily if they'd had the means of passing
on a GR I'd be pretty annoyed"

is the context of a serious post on a serious issue from an experienced
and respected outdoorsy type and not an idle put down made in a spirit
of fun.

Quoted message said:

The point I'm trying to make is that by far the most common usage of
the word "daft" is congenial, is so inconsequential and its not one
that any genuine inference of /intelligence/ is to be based on, -
godammit, its suggested that in common Scot's usage "daft" can be
interpretted as "frolicsome".... yeah, right, when did you last hear a
Scots/person/ drop a casual "frolicsome" into the conversation? ;-)

And the point you seem to be missing is the meaning can be modified by
context. I read PW's post quoted above as rather a serious piece of
comment. Do you see it as an idle off-the-cuff remark?

Quoted message said:

(a) I think you've taken a massive right turn with your interpretation
of the single word and gone on a huge rant because of that - just look
at the common usage of "daft" fer goodness sake (yes, I know you
suggest different connotations but you've used the same word in this
thread in the common congenial context more than once)

But the context in which it is written informs the context in which it
is read.

Quoted message said:

(b.) I think you were wrong to berate a single person (PW) as much as
you have.

I'm not into berating people, I'm into dialogue with or against
opinions. So if PW posts something I disagree with 20 times and I think
it's important, I'll post disagreement 20 times. Of course, she'll have
been disagreeing with me just as much as the other way around, so I've
had just as much "berating" myself.

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/

Paul Saunders said:

The Reid said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed, if you want that kind of excitement.

I do!

You can still have it then. Nothing stopping you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What may otherwise be an enjoyable
navigation challenge can sometimes be a pain in the [censored].

True, sometimes being lost is a pain in the [censored] but you feel all
the better for the experience back in the pub

But not if you end up having to call the MRT or end up dead, which is
probably my point. With a GPS you can choose to end the "exciting
experience" at a sensible point and finish off with an uneventful return to
the car. But at least you get to live! Or at least stay out of the papers
and end up being criticised by the dreaded MRT! ;-)

The primary safety rule of mountain navigation has always been Know When
To Turn Back. This applies to any expedition. The level of your
preparation allows you to go further in relative safety before you have
to turn back, so you can go further if you have a map, further still
with a compass and/or GPS. The GPS does *not* magically allow you to
make that decision where you could not before.

The GPS *will* however help to get you out of danger if you have left
the decision too late. A normally-aware navigator will be keeping their
eye on their position all the time, relating it to the map and checking
frequently, using compass bearings if necessary (usually landmarks are
good enough to fix your position), so that if the clag does come down
suddenly they have a good idea where they are. The GPS substitutes
satellite navigation for the navigators observation.

Knowing where they are, a map-and-compass equipped navigator can plot
the safest escape route, keeping clear of dangers, and navigating as far
as possible by bullet-proof features. A GPS allows the befogged one to
enter a set of waypoints to follow as an escape route, assuming they
haven't already prepared one. But preparing and following an escape
route still require navigational skills, the ability to read a map and
work out a safe route avoiding features dangerous in low vis (like
convex slopes ending in cliffs, gullys, bogs etc; and then to follow
that route when visibility is limited. If the waypoints are poorly
chosen (e.g. by one with poor navigational skills) then the GPS can
still lead you into trouble.

So the basic need is for navigation skills. A map comes close second,
then, much less important, is a compass or a GPS. A compass is cheaper,
but requires slightly more skill and awareness, and should lead to an
earlier "Turn-back" decision if the party is taking notice of their
surrounding conditions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The introduction
> of GPS wipes out a whole load of skills
No it doesn't. You've still got those skills, you don't suddenly
forget.

My point is that you no longer need to use them, they are
redundant.

But you can still choose to use them if you wish. No-one's stopping you.
But in the sense that car owners no longer need horse riding skills then
yes, they *are* redundant. Who nowadays really feels any need to ride
horses now that we have cars?

I stress need, rather than want.

The skillset needed is practically identical whether you use a compass
or a GPS to fix your position. The only difference I can think of is
the specialist techniques for navigating in limited visibility,
step-counting and leapfrog route-marking, not needed with the GPS.

<snip horse-and-buggy discussion of skills becoming obsolete>

Quoted message said:

You *could* navigate from Norway to the Orkneys using one of those ancient
sun-compasses. You *could* go on a hill walk navigating by one of those
magnetic compass thingies, that were in vogue once. But most people would
probably look strangely at you and ask "are you doing an historical
documentary for TV?" Except that they'd probably use the word "a" instead
of "an" because grammmatical correctness is subject to evolutionary
development too. ;-)

I, and I suspect most people, navigate using a map. Occasionally a
compass might be used to fix position (a bit easier with GPS), or to
determine the identity of a distant peak or feature (do *that* with a
GPS :-) ). The map is the primary tool.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

At the extreme, you could do what Phil and I did on the Moelwyns,

now that's what I call navigating!

It was fun too, up to a point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The point is that
with a GPS you have options, you can make it as hard or as easy as
you like. It only takes the challenge away if you allow it to.

I disagree, if you have a GPS in your pocket you will use it when
it gets difficult.

Agreed, but the meaning of the word difficult varies from person to person.
Your average navigational numpty will no doubt take out the GPS at the
merest hint of the slightest potential navigational uncertainty, whereas the
veteran "hard man of the mountains" will no doubt wade through rivers, drag
themselves through bogs and stumble over countless rocky crags for many
miles until they reach a state of severe exhaustion and almost complete
collapse, before even considering the possibility that the electronic device
in the bottom of their rucksacks might be even remotely useful in their
situation.

Both would be prats.

<snip gratuitous insult>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Eventually, lost walkers without one will be
criticised by mountain rescue.

This is what I don't want to happen. I did say that I don't like them
criticising bad navigational ability, but not criticising lack of GPS. But
when I said that, I didn't mean that I wanted them to criticise lack of GPS.
I just thought it unfair that they criticised lack of one set of skills
(traditional) but not the other (modern). I'd prefer it if they criticised
neither.

Without navigational skills, a GPS is useless. Without navigation
skills the party should not have been there in the first place. The
Cairngorms in winter conditions is not the place to learn basic navigation.

Quoted message said:

To touch on Peter's rant about cycle helmets, one could argue that the MRTs
tendency to criticise walkers that they rescue, may in itself be a factor
that could dissuade walkers from heading out onto the hills. Perhaps that's
their intention? But it may be better if instead of criticising the
victim's lack of skills, they were instead to make positive suggestions as
to what they might have done differently? So as to encourage different
behaviour in the future, rather than simply condemning what has been done in
the past.

As far as I can tell, the critical comments were directed to the
reporters, not to the rescued. The MRT may well have suggested to them
in the nicest possible way that they should learn how to navigate before
going out again, even recommended courses, books or instructors.....