Re: My theory on why the GPS argument will never be settled

Paul Saunders wrote:
At this point it's probably worth pointing out that it was my birthday yesterday 

Happy (birthday+1).

I just think MRTs are being rather slow to accept the change in how people navigate, and how they expect them to be able to navigate. If a driver calls the AA because his car broke down, is it reasonable for them to criticise his lack of horse riding ability? "Well sir, if you'd learned to ride a horse properly and brought one as a backup, you could have avoided this unnecessary callout!" ;-)

Fair point, but I think it _would_ be reasonable for them to criticise if one of the tyres was only half inflated and there wasn't enough coolant, i.e. 'normal' preventative maintenance.

My guess is that MRTs worry that people will take a GPS and, with no other navigation skills, launch themselves into the wilds, assuming that the technology will bail them out in case of trouble. But for me 'navigation skills' includes all the stuff you do with a map before you touch either compass or GPS, e.g. route planning, risk assessment, etc. Prior to GPS if someone wanted to know where they were then they picked up a lot of map skills (e.g. triangulation, awareness of terrain, potential dangers, a feel for the distances involved, and so on) just because it was all part of the same package. Now you can just press a button, so it's possible to bypass all of the other stuff, all of which is useful _regardless_ of whether a GPS or compass is preferred, and still have a feeling of being safe because for many people navigation = knowing where you are.

In this instance, the GPS is usually the better tool, because it can do more than a compass, although obviously it's not better in all circumstances.

In exactly the same way that a top of the range digital SLR (see how I've managed to incorporate yet another URW constant theme?) would do a much better job than my current digital point'n'shoot, but I really can't justify spending the cash on one because what I've got does the job well enough.

[Was tempted by a Minolta 505D body to go with my existing Minolta lenses, but then found out that the 35mm wide angle ain't so wide on a digital body. Bummer.]

But different
people have different tolerances to risk, as well as different skills
that affect levels of risk, so for one person to say 'this is how you
should deal with risk' doesn't really work.

I don't think anyone's saying that.

Not explicitly, but when people say it's daft not to use a GPS it seems to me that it's because, in their view, they are more comfortable with the risk level when they take a GPS compared to when they don't. For others, myself included, the level of risk on a given walk remains much as it was because I don't believe a GPS would add significantly to my safety. And some people can't grasp that their perception of risk may not be shared universally, and feel the need to criticise alternative viewpoints.

> This thread has drifted from its
original subject of a *specific* rescue incident in the Cairngorms into a more general "GPS vs. compass" debate.

Yeah, tedious innit? As if there haven't been enough of them over the years.

Colin
.