Re: A new, simpler GPS?

Peter Clinch wrote:

I never said they were. But having to read the manual and being
"unremittingly user hostile" are poles apart.

But if the same person picks up a unit that he can turn on and think
"hey, I know exactly what's going on here", and that's basically the
instructions over and done with, it does have a degree of truth. One
apparently can't do that with a "normal" GPS unit.

I never said that the Active 10 isn't easier to use than a conventional GPS.
I simply took objection to the gross exaggeration that a standard GPS is
"unremittingly user hostile". That's not the kind of thing I expect to read
in a sensible review. Had he simply pointed out that it was easier to use
than a normal GPS I'd have had no problem with it.

The old adage "when all else fails read the
instructions" cuts straight to "I'd better read the instructions!".

What's so hard about that?

See above: if you have a unit that doesn't need that then it clearly
shows something wanting in things that do need that.

No it doesn't. The Active 10 is simpler because it has less functionality.
As I understand it, it has no choice of datums and only UK maps are
available. Fine if you only want to use it in the UK, but a normal GPS isn't
"wanting" because it has a choice of hundreds of datums, on the contrary,
that's a powerful feature which means it can be used anywhere in the world.
Many GPS units have a lot of other features that the Active 10 doesn't, but
that's not a bad thing, it's makes them more powerful.

Setting the right datum isn't exactly rocket science, but it's the main
thing that trips up most newbies. I do think that units exported to
different countries should be preset to the local datum, but that would make
a lot of extra work for the manufacturers.

I've often heard people complain about Garmin manuals, but I don't
see what the problem is. Granted I've never read the eTrex manual,
but I had no problems with the GPS12 or 60CS manuals. They explained
everything needed to use them, and more complex information can
easily be found on the net if a better understanding of how they
work is required.

Web access not typically that good in the back of beyond!

Nor needed either. The complex stuff isn't necessary for everyday operation,
just for the anal types who want to understand every detail of how they
work. And if you want that information, you don't go looking for it while
you're out walking, you do it when you're sitting at your computer.

No, but they are obviously best used with a map.

Depends on what you need to do right there and then. You've
justifiably complained in the past that "map and compass" is not a
single joined-at-the-hip item, and you can take the map out and use
it with a GPS. You can take a compass out too.

There you go again, pointing out exceptions to the rule as if they are
commonplace. For the average UK walker, going out with a compass and no map
would be a bit silly.

How many walkers go out
with a compass but no map? And if all it needs to do is point north,
what's all the other stuff for? The romer, the dials?

Check out an orienteer's thumb compass. No roamer, no protractor,
very coarse gradations (IIRC 30 degree colour coded bands). Given
orienteering is about pin-point navigation it just demonstrates that
all the other stuff is extra:

Like a map?

No, it's not valid to criticise something for what you want it to do
if it's not designed to do that.

It's designed, I would at least like to think, to make getting about
the place as easy as possible.

The prime function of a GPS is to pinpoint your location, to give you
precise coordinates of your position. Everything else is extra.

If the mapping on a Garmin unit fails
to do that as well as the Satmap unit then it's a basic failure of
design, and that is clearly something it is fair to criticise if the
job you have is getting about the place as easily as possible.

It doesn't fail to do that as well as the Satmap, so there's no failure of
design, so it's not fair to criticise it.

Is it fair to criticise a DSLR for being bigger and heavier than a simple
point and shoot, even though it takes much better pictures? Is it fair to
criticise a simple point and shoot for taking crappy pictures when it's
small and light and easy to carry?

The bottom line is that the Active 10 and a conventional GPS are different
types of units. They each have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither
is intrinsically better than the other, they're each better at doing
different things, so you choose the one which suits your requirements
better.

But it is valid to criticise it for not being as easy to use.

I don't disagree that it's easier to use, but it's only easier in that it's
more intuitive at first glance and doesn't require you to set the datum.
Once you've familiarised yourself with a conventional GPS (which really
isn't difficult) there's very little difference in ease of use. Whilst I
find the novelty of using a GPS with an OS map quite appealing, I prefer my
existing GPS because of all the extra functionality that it offers. I'm far
more likely to invest in UK Topo mapping than buy an Active 10.

in a review centred on ease of
use it's fair to comment if a unit is easier to use.

Of course, but it's not fair to say that the alternative is "unremittingly
user hostile". By all means say that it's twice as easy to use, or even 10
times as easy to use, but not 1000 times easier. That's my whole point. I'm
just disagreeing with their gross exaggeration, which implies that
navigating with a conventional GPS is like working out the direction of
north by putting twigs in the ground and studying the movement of the
shadows.

Both types of units are highly advanced, modern navigation devices. Both do
an excellent job. Each has different advantages and disadvantages. And
that's the point. They're different. Medium format cameras didn't suddenly
become obsolete when 35mm cameras were invented, because MF camera still
took better photos, and some photographers cared more about photo quality
than ease of use. Same with the Active 10. It's the GPS equivalent of a
point'n'shoot. Very pretty and easy to use, but conventional GPS units are
still better in other respects.

I've always found that existing units are very helpful. I can only
assume that anyone who doesn't find them helpful just hasn't learned
how to use them effectively. They're not designed to be intuitive,
but reading the manual isn't that hard.

Yet here is a unit that you can pick up and use without one. That
sounds as if it may well mark an improvement, yes?

In one aspect, yes, but not in others. So it's not better, it's different.
It's an alternative.

Your paragraph above rather ironically sounds remarkably similar to
folk saying they don't find map and compass a problem, so there's no
need to move to GPS. You seem to be so reactively defensive about
existing GPS that you can't appreciate it may have considerable room
for improvement to make it even more useful.

Again you seem to be purposely misunderstanding what I wrote. I never said
that GPS doesn't have room for improvement. When the 60CS came out I had no
doubt it was superior to the GPS12 in every respect, but it's not the case
here. Battery consumption is worse, there are fewer features, no altimeter
etc. It's not an unqualified improvement on existing technology. Now if the
OS mapping could be combined with all the features of the 60CS, that would
be a clear improvement. But as things stand, my 60CS is still better at some
things, while the Active 10 is better at others.

but they are /not/ easy to use.

I think they are.

So if they're easy, how come there's so much scope for the Satmap to
be found to be much easier still according to this review?

Easy - easier. Correct.

Easy - unremittingly user hostile. Wrong! Blatant exaggeration.

So there's no point in making things easier?

Of course there is, but you're missing my point again. It's the exaggeration
that I disagree with, not that it's easier to use.

But I don't believe that easier is better if you lose functionality.
Remember the hype surrounding compacts when they first appeared? "Take a
perfect picture every time". Yeah right, even cameras with the most advanced
scene recognition software still haven't mastered that. You still can't beat
doing it manually if you want the best results.

Paul, you use Windows,
yes? The UNIX command line interface is, as is proven by many users
over the decades, quite possible to use, and actually quite a bit more
powerful than a GUI. So read the manual and use it and increase your
computing power...

Now that's a good example of a comparison with something that really is user
hostile. But since you mention it, if you're talking about actual file
management, I can't stand Windows, and I don't use it. I use Windows
Commander, which is basically a Windows version of Norton Commander, a DOS
program. You might remember it. I use it constantly for all my file
management activities. It even has a command line option which I use for
bulk file renaming and suchlike. So no, I don't think Windows is better.
It's prettier to look at, but a pain in the arse to use for anything more
than the simplest of operations.

In short, I'm not remotely impressed by the attitude that things
should "just work" without any effort on your part. Society seems to
have become incredibly lazy in recent years and I have no sympathy
with anyone who can't be bothered to read a manual and then
complains that something doesn't do what they expect it to.

When you're under pressure it can make a lot of difference if things
are as simple as possible. Picture someone who is close to
exhaustion and has numb hands and their judgement is starting to go.
They have a difficult navigation decision to make to get them to
safety. Do you think that should be as easy as possible, or not?

Now you're confusing ease of use with ease of learning. You're not seriously
suggesting that someone would buy a GPS, put it in their rucksack and forget
all about it, waiting before they get into a difficult navigation situation
before switching it on for the first time, then thinking "now then, how does
this work?".

I suppose there may be some exceptions stupid enough to prove that rule, but
I imagine that most people who'd just forked out a few hundred pound on a
GPS would turn it on as soon as they got it, keen to play with their new
toy. After figuring out that it doesn't work indoors they'd wander out to
the garden to get their first grid ref. Then they'd probably check the map,
expecting the grid ref to match where their house is. Then they'd be
dismayed to find that it doesn't, at which point they'd either read the
manual to try to figure out what's wrong, or ask for advice on the internet.

Of course, some are so keen that they dash out for a quick walk before
reading the instructions, but it's likely that most people would use it in
a non-critical situation at first, learning how to use it before trusting it
for serious navigation. Most GPS users faced with a difficult navigation
situation would already know how to use it and have no problems.

In fact, I've been in those very situations, at night in the snow, exhausted
after a long walk, and I've managed perfectly well. The Active 10 may well
be easier to use in the sense of being able to see where you are on a
detailed map, but a normal GPS will get you to safety just as surely. Even
if it's harder to learn initially, it's not hard to use once you know how.

Things should be as simple as they need to be to do their job, /and no
simpler/.

But it is simpler! It has no choice of datums, which makes it easy for
newbies, but useless for anyone wanting to use it in a different country.

But they also shouldn't be any more complicated!

Why not? It depends what the extra complexity entails. If it means more
features then there's nothing wrong with that. I agree that something that
should be simple shouldn't be complex, so it's nice that modern units
automatically switch to Ordnance Survey datum when you select BNG (which
earlier units didn't), but extra features are a good thing, especially if
you use them (I use the sunrise/sunset and barometer features a lot).

It's a
case of good design. if the /same thing/ can be done either in a
simple way or a complex way, it should be the simple way.

Of course, but removing features is a different matter altogether.

Want to go back to command line interfaces on your computer?

I still use it for some things.

But that assumes that you already understand how to read an OS map.
So the "intuitive" Active 10 actually requires previous knowledge.
Had you never seen an OS map before, it wouldn't be intuitive at all.

But that argument is cancelled straight out by your previous point
that you should be using a GPS with a map. It's a bit of a red
herring, because you'd assumed basically the same yourself.

That argument isn't cancelled at all. Quite the contrary, it reinforces it.
You have to learn to use a GPS, you have to learn to use a map, so you have
to learn to use an Active 10.

Bottom line is that most things have to be learned! There's very little that
is truly intuitive without previous experience of something else.

I once read a review of the PC version of Cubase, where the reviewer
complained that the interface wasn't remotely intuitive. He found it very
confusing to use. I, on the other hand, found it extremely intuitive,
probably one of the most intuitive programs I've ever used. But then I first
used it on the Atari ST, which uses Mac conventions. On the PC these
conventions are different, so it seemed non-intuitive to PC users. By the
same token, I didn't find the PC intuitive when I first got one, having to
relearn all those interface conventions that seem so "obvious".

The Active 10 is only intuitive because it uses what people already know. In
the same way I found the 60CS intuitive after using the GPS12.

As you can with a mapping GPS loaded with a topo map.

At greater cost and with a steeper learning curve, ISTM.

It's actually cheaper. One UK Topo map covers the whole country with finely
detailed contours and rivers comparable to 25k mapping, and even more
detailed roads. The whole UK at 25k scale would cost a fortune on the Active
10. The steeper learning curve is negligible, it doesn't take long. Learning
to use a GPS isn't as hard as you seem to be suggesting.

I gather that the 25k maps come with the 50k included, as well as
250k for an overview, so that's pretty good for zooming in and out.
For accurate positioning the 25k is pretty essential, using the 50k
will show many flaws in the mapping, especially regarding footpaths
and positions of cairns, summits etc. 50k would be okay for an
overview, but not for micro-navigation in low visibility.

Yet people do this with 1:50k maps...

Actually they don't. They may get to the feature they want to reach, but
that feature may not be exactly where the map says it is. This is possible
because 50k map features are often relative rather than absolute, and also
because experienced navigators use other clues from the environment, like
the slope of the land.

When you look at a paper map, you assume that your position is where the
feature is marked on the map, but a GPS will often show you somewhere
different. Spot heights and cairns are notoriously inaccurate on 50k maps,
not to mention footpaths. For example, when you reach a summit you would
normally assume that you are at the marked spot height, but the GPS may show
you 30m away from it in some cases. I've even seen an error of about 50m
once. So if you're using the Active 10 to walk to a 50k spot height, you may
end up some distance away from the actual summit.

See examples here:
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/ccg.gif
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/fan-fawr.gif
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/misc/cairns.gif

The maps are all 25k. The red waypoints mark the 50k map positions, the
orange the 25k position, and the yellow is an actual position marked in the
field. In the case of the cairns example, trusting the 50k map would often
put you in a different field.

Obviously this wouldn't be an issue in good visibility, and even in poor
visibility it's often not that bad, but if you're in thick fog with only 10m
visibility, trying to find a cairn that's 30m away could be a problem. Not
an insurmountable one, you could simply wander around until you find it, but
surely it would be better to use a more accurate map in the first place?

And even if visibility isn't a problem, it would bother me a lot to see
myself following a path on the ground that's 20m away on the map. That
bothers me when I look at tracks on the PC afterwards, it would bother me a
lot more to see it in real time. The 25k mapping is far superior for GPS
use, especially if you really do need to micro-navigate in thick fog.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk



.

Relevant Pages

  • My comments about the etrex Vista C
    ... with walking excursions at sea level. ... I have had GPS before so the behaviour is more or less like a etrex ... altimeter is sure to indicate a change in elevation. ... The Metroguide map is in general very accurate where there is map;) I ...
    (sci.geo.satellite-nav)
  • Re: GPS Vs COMPASS
    ... > using my compass to orient my map and to take bearings when it is not ... > Clearly you must be using your GPS merely as an emergency device ... > checking your route is correct by consulting your map in combination ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: gps recommendations?
    ... examples of gps units and software that talk to topo maps and merge waypoints to the map, ... The minimal features you need in the GPS receiver are creating an automatic "track log" that records where you went, and connecting the GPS receiver to a computer, so that the software can make good use of the information about where you went. ... And it also appears that they have a basic model called SporTrak which seems to be analogous to the Garmin eTrex in that the "plain" SporTrak meets the minimal requirements and then they have a series of more expensive models (SporTrak Pro, SporTrak Color, SporTrak Map, SporTrak Topo, etc.) with additional features. ...
    (rec.skiing.nordic)
  • Re: A new, simpler GPS?
    ... Fine if you only want to use it in the UK, but a normal GPS isn't ... Only if you're using those features, ... going out with a compass and no map ... UNIX command line: easy for habitual users of UNIX command line. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: portable GPS recommendation?
    ... The c550 is my first true GPS/auto unit, so I guess I fall into the "new user" category. ... Both TomTom and Magellan have been plagued by mounting hardware issues, and Garmin has hit a home run with this very simple, yet highly effective, mount. ... You attach the c550 to the mount by simply applying pressure until you hear the ball on the mount click into the back of the Garmin StreetPilot c550. ... Garmin got the angle just right, so the 3D is just as easy to read on the map as 2D. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)