Re: GPS Vs COMPASS

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:49:51 +0100, Roger <Roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>The message <bifhe15bgqsudajbcp23ods13vp8o47n9g@xxxxxxx>
>from Norman <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> contains these words:
>
>> >> I would think that in another 10 years no-one will be using the
>> >> magnetic compass and it will go the same way as the slide rule and
>> >> logarithms when the pocket calculator became available.
>
>> >Think again. If I am still walking in 10 years time I will still be
>> >using my compass to orient my map and to take bearings when it is not
>> >immediately obvious from the lie of the land which way to go. Why?
>> >Because I find it much simpler and much more flexible than faffing
>> >around with routes and waypoints for every possible eventuality. A GPS
>> >(I am on my second) is a wonderful instrument for showing where you have
>> >been and, in extremis, where you are, but they are a waste of effort for
>> >fair weather navigation and only of marginally greater assistance in the
>> >clag.
>
>> Clearly you must be using your GPS merely as an emergency device which
>> is a shame considering the cost and benefits it has to offer.
>
>Wrong again. I carry a GPS to tell me where I have been. I have
>sufficient confidence in my own ability not to (usually) need the
>comfort of absolute assurance of where I currently am.
>
>Having once been a production engineer I am always on the lookout for
>the easiest and simplest solution to any problem. As far as hill walking
>navigation in clear weather is concerned map and compass wins on both
>counts. It also wins on flexibility which is an issue with those who
>don't stick to a rigidly planned itinerary.
>
>> There is generally no need to bother with routes unless you want to
>> keep to a clearly defined path which in the UK is nearly always
>> visually discernable anyway.
>
>Which begs the question about the nature of a "clearly defined path"
>which is not "visually discernable".
>
>> My technique with a GPS is to mark the position of my intended
>> destination waypoint by saving the coordinates or transferring the
>> position via my PC. Then do the same for the start point, eg car in
>> car park at starting point at the beginning of a trek by pressing the
>> appropriate buttons. This can be done quickly either at home or when
>> you arrive at the start.
>
>And if you happen to have chosen a route that does not lead almost
>directly to your target how does go-to really help you to navigate
>there?
>
>> Normally, with a map, if you are walking up a hill etc it is usual to
>> start at the bottom and gradually follow the path to the summit
>> checking your route is correct by consulting your map in combination
>> with compass triangulation fixes with a compass and noting/comparing
>> localised terrain features with what you see around you and what is
>> printed on your map. Most of the time there is no need to even look at
>> a map because in clear visibility the route would be obvious by the
>> errosion caused by thousands of boots churning up the ground or
>> polishing the rock surfaces.
>
>I can't even remember the last time I tried to fix my position by
>triangulation. It presupposes that you don't have much of a clue where
>you actually are but can still recognise 2 prominent features as unique
>points. OTOH a majority of my walking (stretching back more than 40
>years) seems to have been on paths that either weren't visible on the
>ground or didn't exist in the first place.
>
>> My method is to make use of all three ie map, compass and GPS
>> Using a GPS switch on and select find/goto the destination waypoint
>> and set off walking towards the destination by walking in the
>> direction the compass rose pointer indicates. If you want to use a
>> magnetic compass with the GPS you can set the GPS to give magnetic
>> variation compensated bearings and every now and then switch on your
>> GPS note the indicated bearing to destination and then transfer this
>> to your compass and use that bearing to steer with. Using this method
>> you can wander around exploring as you go. If you want to get back on
>> a path, find your position using the GPS, note coordinates, look at
>> map and locate present position and then work out bearing to nearest
>> point on path either by compass or entering coordinates of path
>> waypoint and getting the bearing to this new path waypoint from GPS
>> reading. Once on path put everything back in rucksack and plod up to
>> the top.
>
>Still unnecessary faffing about. As long as you know approximately where
>you are and can read a map (not always a given for some walkers) it is
>easy enough to find the nearest path should you need one to get you to
>your next target and just as easy to find a more direct route on the
>map. Using a go-to without consulting the map is the short sighted
>option. Not because you might walk off a cliff while blindly following
>your GPS, not even the stupidest of individuals are likely to do that
>(although it is worth bearing in mind that a German driver drove down a
>slipway into a river because he failed to realise that the road he was
>being guided along was interrupted by a ferry) but because the direct
>route could so easily lead down a spur, not along the ridge to the next
>summit.
>
>> At top use car or start position as new destination and just do same
>> procedure as previous or follow path down hill.
>
>If you can see where you are going you don't need the assistance of a
>GPS and with your crude usage it is difficult to see what advantage you
>actually gain other than confirmation that you are there when you
>eventually reach your target after following a path that is unlikely to
>be anywhere near the straight line that your GPS is indicating.
>
>> Interestingly all ordnance survey maps are now corrected using GPS
>> derived coordinates. The triangulation points on hill tops serve as a
>> nostalgic reminder of the effort that went into producing the maps.
>
>Some of the trig points have been retained unlike the Prime Meridian
>that has been hijacked by the Yanks and is now fixed to some point in
>North America rather than at Greenwich Observatory. I wonder what the OS
>will do as the Greenwich Meridian gradually heads West.
>
>> I look forward to the day when one can buy a device that you can put
>> in your pocket and when you want to know where you are you can just
>> ask it to tell you or show you on a 1 in 25000 colour map.
>
>Even then it will still be just as easy to use a map and compass
>provided the map is of a manageable size. Maybe even easier given
>current screen sizes.
Roger
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. 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. It reminds me of when I used to go caving
and had to endure criticism for using SRT gear instead of clambering
up and down electron rope ladders and that I prefered wellies to
leather boots.
If you are quite happy using your system then there is no need for you
to change to another system and I support you in your choice.

Norman


.