Re: compass or gps?

The message <ptCdndFOOrPGEjTanZ2dneKdnZyrnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx>
from "Paul Saunders" <pvs1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> contains these words:

Paul has been plugging this approach to navigation for years

Because it works!

Only for people who like playing with computers. :-)

but I for
one find a gps flooded with waypoints anything but simple

Again, it depends how you use your GPS. You don't choose waypoints from a
long list, do you? I do practically everything on the map screen. I can see
the nearest waypoints and I can create a GOTO by using the cursor keys to
scroll to a waypoint, click enter and select GOTO. In fact I can scroll to
any point on the map, create a waypoint there and GOTO it. Obviously having
contour lines helps, as do points of interest (the free contour lines
include all the main summits as points of interest).

The more you can do the more you have to remember how to do it.

and the one
time I tried following a route I found it a right PITA.

As I've said before, I rarely ever follow routes, preferring to GOTO
individual waypoints, but I do follow them occasionally and I don't find it
a problem. There are a few quirks that you need to become familiar
with, for
example if you miss a waypoint it gets confused, but you can easily get
around that by inserting an "enroute GOTO". Obviously that isn't obvious if
you're not familiar with using routes, but like anything, it becomes easy
with practice.

I am with you in principle on that but I do admit to rather more gps.
Basic navigation is very much on the shape of the land and that comes
from the map, not the gps.

Please let's not start this map vs. GPS silliness. GPS navigation is based
on studying the map first. If you place inappropriate waypoints, that's not
the GPS's fault. The GPS doesn't know what the shape of the land is,
it's up
to you to interpret it and place waypoints accordingly. Good waypoint
placement is a skill, something that gets easier with practice. The
trick is
to put in as few as possible, but in the the optimum places.

You're the one who is starting the map v gps silliness. There is much
more information on a map than you have on the screen of your gps and
with a much wider scope. Even if you did have the luxury of 1:25000
mapping on your gps you would still be at a great disadvantage because
you cannot see it in the context of your less immediate surroundings. It
is all very well to say that you learn the landscape first but I for one
cannot remember enough to base my navigation on it and more waypoints =
more clutter in my book.

My pre planning usually involves no more than deciding on the best route
up a hill and whether I can link anything else in to avoid returning the
same way.

But I agree that the shape of the land is the important thing, and that
mainly comes from the eye rather than the map. The map is a good starting
point, but once I'm out there, I choose my route based on the nature of the
land. Not just the shape, but the terrain. Obviously bogs and heather and
suchlike are to be avoided. These things are often not obvious on the map.

There are two (at least) distinct issues with the shape of the land. The
first is for planning routes. The second is in indicating where you are
on the map and what features you are aiming for.

Besides, I now have contours in my GPS, so I can easily see the shape
of the
land without having to consult a map (not that I ever did before I got a
mapping GPS). It's not highly detailed, but that in fact makes it easier to
read, much like your preference of 50k/1" maps over 25k maps for
gettting an
overview of the area.

I still have a soft spot for the old 1" maps, particularly the tourist
maps with shading to emphasise the hills. I did most of the Munros
before the 2nd Series 1:50000 became available and it was much easier to
find a way up some hills before the OS started obliterating contours
with crag symbols.

I prepare by entering waypoints for the principal summits of the day
and, perhaps, the occasional significant col (particularly if the
visibility is going to be bad) and, these days, parking places, as I
can almost guarantee that I will fail to place a waypoint when I do
arrive at my starting point.

Perhaps you could benefit from a few more intermediate waypoints then? Many
navigational difficulties tend to be at low level, not up on the summits. I
often place more waypoints at the start of a walk than anywhere else, just
to navigate through fields and paths to get onto the open hill.

More clutter. :-) In my book most navigational difficulties start when
the visibility disappears and that is rare at low level. What is not so
rare at low level is ways that are not visible on the ground. Doesn't
matter how good your navigation is if you are faced with an impenetrable
thicket where the path should be (or even man eating bracken as I am
sure you (Paul) will remember).

I might have a go-to in the gps but where navigation over and above a
quick glance at the map is needed between summits out comes the
compass unless the route to the next summit is a single straight leg.

If it requires more than a quick glance at the map then why not just
place a
few extra waypoints at the planning stage? It sounds like you have to use a
compass because you didn't place enough waypoints.

Because I need a quick glance at the map to remind me where I am. In
that context I would use my compass to orient the map. The other most
likely scenario where I might use a compass is where A to B is not a
straight line and the ground is flat enough not to provide an obvious
line. What might be fine in the clear can be confusing in mist but a
quick bearing (or three) off the map is still easier than putting in
waypoints on the fly.

What I have noticed over the years I have had a gps is that my
traditional navigating skills have become more than a little rusty and I
am now not so likely to know exactly where I am on the map at all times.

Out on hills I know well I might not consult either map or compass all
day but in unfamiliar territory it is a different ball game and I might
well be walking with a map (A4 laminated) stuck in my waist band for
easy access.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My theory on why the GPS argument will never be settled
    ... >> undeniably useful, but not useful enough for me to bother with. ... Who needs a map when you've got a GPS? ... > waypoints in advance, there's rarely any actual need to look at the map. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: UK-biased question about GPS
    ... I assume that if I buy the bottom level GPS I have to "manually" ... map, and it just watches satellites, and points me towards the next ... As long as it has a PC interface you can use that to enter waypoints, ... Garmin (or other brand receivers). ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • Re: Anquet v06
    ... In the end and with great confusion I did manage to plot a track, put numbered waypoints on it, send the track and the waypoints to the GPS and print the map. ... the only way I could find to do this was by creating a new folder for the track and another new folder for the waypoints. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Keeping Maps etc. dry
    ... You mean the GPS discussion? ... I can't remember the last time I got a map ... end up slavishly following the route in the machine; ... bunch of useful waypoints and make up the route as I go along. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Garmin Topo GB v2 - Report using Vista C
    ... If you're walking across wild land you could just set the waypoints ... co-ordinates from OS map and typing them in. ... the rest of the time the GPS was a backup navigation tool. ... detail- If you had to rely on navigating direct to waypoints by GPS ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
Loading