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

Colin MacDonald wrote:

> Happy (birthday+1).

Thanks.

>> 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.

Which would be on a par with criticising a GPS user for not setting the
correct datum and coordinate display. Or criticising them for not carrying
spare batteries.

> 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.

Perhaps, but only if people make the naive assumption that the GPS is a
magic box which does all the navigating for you. It doesn't. Nor more than
a compass navigates by itself. They are both just tools, it's up to the
user to learn how to use them.

A GPS will give you a position fix, but that's all. That isn't navigation.

> 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.

Of course.

> 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.

You still do.

> Now you can just press a button,

Which button would that be? The "study the map, plan a route, select
appropriate waypoints, input them into the GPS and do all the navigating for
me" button? ;-)

> so it's possible to bypass all of the other stuff,

Sorry, but it isn't. It's not a magic box, there's no magic button. It
will tell you where you are, but that's all. If you want to navigate with
it, you have to learn how, and that requires all of the same skills of map
reading, route planning and so on that you need to do compass work.

With a compass, all it does is point north. If you don't know how to use
it, it's actually pretty useless. All it will help you to do is orient your
map. A GPS is slightly more useful in that it will tell you where you are,
but it won't navigate for you, it's up to you to do that.

> 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.

Same with a GPS. I suspect you've never used one because you're making
assumptions about simply "pressing a button". If all you do is enter a
waypoint for a mountain summit then press the GOTO button to walk direct to
that summit, then you're asking for trouble. It'll lead you into lakes,
across cliffs and so on. That's not navigation.

Navigation with a GPS requires the same route planning skills as with a
compass. You have to study the map, plan a route, carefully place waypoints
and so on. Having done that, you could then follow that route using either
a compass or a GPS. The actual techniques used to follow the route may be
different, but the route planning is fundamentally the same. You still need
to be able to read contours, avoid cliffs and so on. Anyone who thinks that
buying a GPS means that they don't have to do any of that stuff is asking
for trouble.

In fact, since I first got GPS I've found that I spend a lot more time
studying the map and planning routes carefully beforehand, and consequently
have a much better situational awareness when following a GPS route than I
ever did when using a map alone (I've hardly ever needed to get the compass
out, the map usually sufficed).

In the old days, I'd grab the map, have a quick scan and work out a rough
route, then I'd dash off, working out the finer points as I came to them.
Consequently, a lot of time was spent stopping to look at the map and work
out the precise details of how to get from this bit to that bit.
Admittedly, all that was part of the fun, but the point is that I did most
of my navigating on the fly, rather than carefully working it out
beforehand. Nowadays the latter is true, so I actually spend more time on
planning these days due to the GPS.

>> 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,

Actually, it would be more accurate to compare taking a photograph with
making a drawing. Comparing two different types of digital cameras is like
comparing two different models of GPS.

> but I really can't justify spending the cash on one because what
> I've got does the job well enough.

You're basically comparing a bog standard GPS like the Geko to a colour
mapping GPS with all the bells and whistles. You don't really need the
mapping model because the Geko will do 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 you can buy ultrawide angle lenses specifically for DSLRs these days.
Look on the bright side, your telephoto lenses are now much longer than they
used to be.

>>> 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.

What people are saying (me at least) is that it's daft not to carry a GPS in
the Cairngorms in the middle of winter with serious weather forecast.
That's what this thread is supposed to be about.

> 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.

Quite. As I say, on most of my walks I don't even use the GPS for
navigation, mainly just for walk recording.

But where a GPS does make a difference is in enabling you to go out in
conditions that you might previously have avoided, from a nav point of view.
For example walking in thick fog or night walks. You may be experienced in
these things, I don't know, but many people aren't, and I'm sure that there
are many walkers who feel very uncomfortable walking in thick fog across
featureless moorland. A GPS though, may give them the confidence to do just
that, once they are certain they can trust it. I certainly wouldn't
recommend heading off into zero visibility without learning how to use the
GPS properly first.

> And some people can't
> grasp that their perception of risk may not be shared universally,
> and feel the need to criticise alternative viewpoints.

Agreed. Some people are very nervous of stepping outside their comfort
zone, and perceive things to be dangerous that others take for granted. I
suspect that the majority of traditional navigators who dismiss GPS have
been doing trad nav for so long that they just take it for granted. They
don't realise how difficult it is for some people.

Paul


.

Loading