Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Alan Dicey <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:25:00 +0100
Peter Clinch wrote:
Alan Dicey wrote:
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.
In order for a GPS to be of use finding a field boundary/path crossing point I would have to program in every such point before starting, as I don't know beforehand which fields will prove to be navigationally bereft. Add to this the fact that mapped field boundaries have often been improved out of existance by farmers with big machinery... This is more preparation than I would want for a simple ten-miler across the North Downs, for instance. I'm not saying it can't be used, only that it is not what I would choose to use in such a situation.
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.
The GPS allows you to be more carefree, and only react once the difficult situation has arisen. But in both cases you still need to be able to use a map.
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.
I've heard that the cheaper (i.e. affordable)fluxgate compass sensors are not very precise, and the display is not as helpful as the analog display presented by a compass needle.
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...
This is surely a case for the carriage of a cellphone, so that you can call Charles and ask him where to find the Old Man......... :-) .
- References:
- GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Richard Baker
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Norman
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Roger
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Norman
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Roger
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Norman
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Peter Clinch
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Norman
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Peter Clinch
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Alan Dicey
- Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- From: Peter Clinch
- GPS Vs COMPASS
- Prev by Date: Re: Tegg lamb
- Next by Date: Re: Disposable fip flops
- Previous by thread: Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- Next by thread: Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|