GPS or Map & Compass?

[DougPaul]

Incidentally, finding the summits has often been relatively easy when compared to finding the way back out.

Summits are easily found by going up (although this algorithm may get you to the wrong one). Cars, however, are not so easily found by going down...

FWIW, this problem can be solved pretty easily by saving a GPS waypoint at your car before starting out. Also helps to prevent that awkward "I came down the other side of the mountain" problem.

Doug

 

[Raven]

Summits are easily found by going up (although this algorithm may get you to the wrong one). Cars, however, are not so easily found by going down...


Doug

Exactly. There are few high points but many low points. I've been very careful on those few bushwhack descents that don't have an obvious stream or road crossing to simply stumble into.

Non-bushwhacking: In winter or questionable conditions above treeline, I usually keep my compass close at hand and carefully note the bearing back to the exit route as well as the bearing to an alternate descent back below treeline in preparation for whiteouts/no visibility.

"keep your nose in the wind and your eyes along the skyline"

 

[AMF]

Getting into deeper water (i.e. kayaking) I recently had the chance to make a side by side comparison of GPS vs map & deck compass (using a neat little piece of plastic called a NavAid) off the coast of Maine. I find navigating the island mazes of coastal Maine quite confusing. One island looks like another, they overlap and blend in… I get lost. Using the GPS, I constantly had to change scales & pan around to see where I was going. With the NavAid overlaid on a chart I instantly could see where I was going, what bearing I needed to follow, and distance to destination. The only thing I found the GPS better at was determining exactly where I was at any given moment, which would be a benefit in a heavy fog. And it does give your speed and a nice track plot to play with later.

For me, map & compass was the winner hands down for navigation. And best of all, it’s always on! Just don’t store anything metallic under your compass.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Some of the comments concerning the GPS remind me of something my mom once said to my dad. Dad came home with a brand new car with automatic drive. It was the first time he had ever had an automatic. My mom who had driven the old three speed column shifts for years looked at my dad's prize possession with disgust and said: "Harold you know I could never learn to drive an automatic." A few years later I can guarantee you she never would have gone near a car with a stick shift.

Most hikes on trails certainly do not require a GPS. But as someone has well pointed out, finding your car on the way back from a whack, well that's another story. No one has to use a GPS just as no one has to drive a car with an automatic but the technology is there if you want to avail yourself of it.

I did all the bushwhacks for the 100 highest solo. I studied everything and every website I could before leaving. I also had a Magellan Sportrac GPS with topo software. It got me in and out of every hike without the slightest glitch. I loved it. It was great. I often said at the time the committee should have two types of awards, one for guys like me who "cheated" with a GPS and one for the guys who did it without a GPS.

As great as that GPS was, technology wise it has been left in the dust by the Explorist 610 that I use now. The GPS has become so highly complex that you do need to play with it a lot and know how to use every aspect of it so that when it is really necessary it will be able to deliver. I think a lot of folks who own a GPS aren't fully aware of all that it is capable of doing.

I guess what I'm saying is the three speed column shift will still get you there just as the eight speed automatic will get you there. Unlike my car analogy I would never go on a hike without a paper map and magnetic compass. Just cuz! It's a back up and I've nothing against back up plans but I have moved on. To each his own.

 

[RoySwkr]

The highest and best use for a GPS may be for an Alzheimers patient or someone who frequently wakes up soused with no idea of where they are or how they got there - a map is only of value if you can see where you are (trail junction signs) or know where you started and which direction you went.

It is always possible to enter incorrect coordinates (human error). However, an error in transferring the coordinates is most likely going to result in a location which is not confusable with the desired peak. And if you read the wrong location off the map (and enter its coordinates correctly), it is a human map reading error which has nothing to do with the GPS.

There are a number of ways to get bad coordinates in a GPS unit:
* The preloaded GPS maps are wrong, the bump that my sister's GPS showed as the summit of Snows Mtn was one bump too far beyond the true summit
* You get erroneous coordinates from a buddy, a website, etc. and enter them correctly
* You get correct coordinates and enter them erroneously - transpositions are common on geocache locations
* You digitize coordinates from an inaccurate paper map - one of the 3 bumps shown for Mt Cabot apparently doesn't exist

The issue is not one of who's to blame, it is that the device may not correctly indicate the summit even if the electronics function perfectly.

(Remember, you are on or near a peak which is likely to have a good skyview and thus good signals.) If you get a bad location (ie a large error), it is very unlikely to be on a nearby peak and it is likely to jump around unrealistically.

The poster must have limited experience with spruce/fir summits On the bump S of Wildcat one could go from 6 satellites to 0 in a few steps. I believe the original post was referring more to people who stopped on the wrong bump maybe 1/10 mile away in thick scrub rather than somebody who climbed the wrong summit 5 miles away. This is exactly the sort of conditions in which the signal may be poor and coordinates jumping all over, within the error range he's talking about. Let's just say that chasing a jumpy signal in thick scrub is not an effortless use of a GPS.

And many peaks have multiple coordinates for the highpoint which I doubt
anyone enters in a GPS.
This is essentially the same problem whether you are using a GPS or not.

Not quite. If you have a map and study it, hopefully you will see the multiple bumps while if you just download summit coords from somewhere there will probably just be one set and you will not know of the others. Can you show me a website with coords for 3 bumps of Mt Cabot or 2 of South Carter?

(Paper maps can be incorrect too - the WMG map shows S Kinsman at what most people agree is the wrong place.)

One approach for those who do not wish to use a GPS to navigate but wish to verify that they reached the proper peak is to carry a GPS to record a track without consulting it during the hike. One can then check after the fact. However, this reduces the risk since you know that in an emergency you can always use the GPS.

That only makes sense if your objection to GPS is purely philosophical, as by running a track log you are exposing the device to far more risk of damage and loss than if you just take it out of your well-protected pack only to check the coords once you think you are on the summit (or if you think you are lost and need a hint.) Most non-users are probably less from philosophy than from expense or the hassle of obtaining and loading coords.

If you have a radio or cell phone, there may be merit in carrying a GPS in your first aid kit only to report your location if injured. As cell phone triangulation improves, that may become unnecessary.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

The highest and best use for a GPS may be for an Alzheimers patient or someone who frequently wakes up soused with no idea of where they are or how they got there - a map is only of value if you can see where you are (trail junction signs) or know where you started and which direction you went.

Alzheimer's?? I should have known, my wife has been trying to tell me that all along. I think that's why she says I hike so much.

 

[DougPaul]

As great as that GPS was, technology wise it has been left in the dust by the Explorist 610 that I use now. The GPS has become so highly complex that you do need to play with it a lot and know how to use every aspect of it so that when it is really necessary it will be able to deliver. I think a lot of folks who own a GPS aren't fully aware of all that it is capable of doing.

The modern top-of-the-line GPSes have all sorts of features. However, you don't need to know how to use them all--just the ones that are important for navigation. One "feature" that is much improved over the older models is much better reception in poor skyview conditions (eg under tree cover, in ravines, etc).

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

Getting into deeper water (i.e. kayaking) I recently had the chance to make a side by side comparison of GPS vs map & deck compass (using a neat little piece of plastic called a NavAid) off the coast of Maine. I find navigating the island mazes of coastal Maine quite confusing. One island looks like another, they overlap and blend in… I get lost. Using the GPS, I constantly had to change scales & pan around to see where I was going. With the NavAid overlaid on a chart I instantly could see where I was going, what bearing I needed to follow, and distance to destination. The only thing I found the GPS better at was determining exactly where I was at any given moment, which would be a benefit in a heavy fog. And it does give your speed and a nice track plot to play with later.

The GPS is limited by its small screen and is good at giving you the local picture and the chart (map for you landlubbers...) is better at giving you the big picture. IMO, the two complement each other and both are better than either alone. And if either fails or is lost, one can get by on the other one. (FWIW, I have done nautical navigation in the fog... (pre-GPS))

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

The highest and best use for a GPS may be for an Alzheimers patient or someone who frequently wakes up soused with no idea of where they are or how they got there - a map is only of value if you can see where you are (trail junction signs) or know where you started and which direction you went.

If the Alzheimer's patient can remember how to use the GPS...

There are also tracking devices that use the cellphone-system to periodically report an individual's location back to a monitor. If need be, the monitor can then go out and retrieve the patient.

There are a number of ways to get bad coordinates in a GPS unit:
* The preloaded GPS maps are wrong, the bump that my sister's GPS showed as the summit of Snows Mtn was one bump too far beyond the true summit
* You get erroneous coordinates from a buddy, a website, etc. and enter them correctly
* You get correct coordinates and enter them erroneously - transpositions are common on geocache locations
* You digitize coordinates from an inaccurate paper map - one of the 3 bumps shown for Mt Cabot apparently doesn't exist

The issue is not one of who's to blame, it is that the device may not correctly indicate the summit even if the electronics function perfectly.

The GPS's fundamental job is to accurately report the coordinates of its current location. Proper interpretation of those coordinates is up to the user. A mapping GPS will plot those coordinates on a digital map--but the issues of map accuracy and interpretation are the same whether the map is on paper or digital.

The poster must have limited experience with spruce/fir summits On the bump S of Wildcat one could go from 6 satellites to 0 in a few steps. I believe the original post was referring more to people who stopped on the wrong bump maybe 1/10 mile away in thick scrub rather than somebody who climbed the wrong summit 5 miles away. This is exactly the sort of conditions in which the signal may be poor and coordinates jumping all over, within the error range he's talking about. Let's just say that chasing a jumpy signal in thick scrub is not an effortless use of a GPS.

It sounds like someone has been using an old GPS... I have observed no such problems with my Garmin 60CSx. (The worst that I have observed with it is a possible error of ~50 ft when below a ledge in tree cover. But the error might also have been in the reference track...)

Not quite. If you have a map and study it, hopefully you will see the multiple bumps while if you just download summit coords from somewhere there will probably just be one set and you will not know of the others. Can you show me a website with coords for 3 bumps of Mt Cabot or 2 of South Carter?

I don't get my coordinates from a website... I get them myself directly from the map. If I did get coordinates from a website, I'd plot them on a map to check them before using them and I recommend that you do the same. (Navigating by heading toward a waypoint without checking out the intervening terrain is also a good way to get into trouble.)

(Paper maps can be incorrect too - the WMG map shows S Kinsman at what most people agree is the wrong place.)

Many of the digital maps are just digital representations of a paper map (or the same underlying database). The medium is not the message.

One approach for those who do not wish to use a GPS to navigate but wish to verify that they reached the proper peak is to carry a GPS to record a track without consulting it during the hike. One can then check after the fact. However, this reduces the risk since you know that in an emergency you can always use the GPS.

That only makes sense if your objection to GPS is purely philosophical,

Not necessarily. And I often carry my GPS in my pack to record a track without consulting it.

as by running a track log you are exposing the device to far more risk of damage and loss than if you just take it out of your well-protected pack only to check the coords once you think you are on the summit (or if you think you are lost and need a hint.)

Wrong. Dry pack fabric is transparent to GPS signals--when I am simply recording a track I normally carry the GPS inside (the top pocket of) my pack. I may not take it out until I get back to the trailhead. But I am aware that if I need it, I have it.

Most non-users are probably less from philosophy than from expense or the hassle of obtaining and loading coords.

If you don't want to carry a GPS for what ever reason, then don't. I do, however, find people who are loudly self-righteous about not carrying one to be annoying.

BTW, Since I have a mapping GPS with appropriate maps loaded, I don't usually bother loading coords at all. With a paper map for the large picture and the GPS for the small picture, I can almost always do what I want by simple inspection. For the vast majority of my hikes, I do no special preparation of the GPS... It is rarely needed on trail hikes and I often leave it turned off or simply record a track without consulting it.

Doug

 

[Neil]

re: The Luddite comments, smashing looms, using flint to light a fire and all of that jazz:

Making use of the incremental improvements brought about by better clothing, footwear etc. over the years hasn't drastically changed my subjective experiences. Additionally, my car is a lot more comfy, with plush leather seats, surround sound, butt warmers, cruise etc. etc. and that has left my bushwhacking experiences unchanged but greatly improved my post-hike experience.

I think the never-ending hubbub over GPS vs. map and compass is that the quantum leap from M&C to GPS technology has had a really big and instant impact on the overall bushwhacking experience. I use a GPS from time to time and enjoy doing so. I also often carry one even if I have decided not to use one on a given hike and just knowing I have it greatly changes the character of my experience.

That said, if I ever start another GPS vs. map and compass thread feel free to shoot me.

 

[TomK]

I carry a map, compass, and a trail guide. I do not own a GPS. I'm one of those fellows who pulls out the trail guide almost every time he stops, even though the text hasn't changed since the last time he stopped

I find I rarely need the map, and the compass even less so, but I carry them because the likelihood I'll get lost and need them seems to be increasing rather than decreasing, as does my tolerance for "unplanned side trips" or "inadvertent bushwhacks", and my energy available for the same. Since I almost always hike solo, maybe I *should* get a GPS for such an occasion. My most frequent use for the map and compass seems to be arrival at a summit or viewpoint, orienting the map and using it to identify distant features that I see too rarely to know by sight.

Tomk

 

[bubba]

hmmm... and my thought on all of this is who cares? A very recent day in the woods with a GPS used to note terrain features and summit coordinates didn't even enter into whether I was having a great time.

Given - I limit my exposure.

 

[DougPaul]

Making use of the incremental improvements brought about by better clothing, footwear etc. over the years hasn't drastically changed my subjective experiences. Additionally, my car is a lot more comfy, with plush leather seats, surround sound, butt warmers, cruise etc. etc. and that has left my bushwhacking experiences unchanged but greatly improved my post-hike experience.

Agreed--GPS is just another tool that, while it makes some aspects a bit easier, does not fundamentally affect my enjoyment of the woods.

I think the never-ending hubbub over GPS vs. map and compass is that the quantum leap from M&C to GPS technology has had a really big and instant impact on the overall bushwhacking experience. I use a GPS from time to time and enjoy doing so. I also often carry one even if I have decided not to use one on a given hike and just knowing I have it greatly changes the character of my experience.

If you look back at technical climbing, the old timers made a fuss about the introduction of pitons (not sporting...), aid climbing (cheating), etc. GPS is just another improvement in technique/equipment. And by making backcountry navigation more reliable it may enable people to go on more adventurous bushwacks than they would have without. And maybe prevent a rescue or two.

That said, if I ever start another GPS vs. map and compass thread feel free to shoot me.

That's all right. We'll just shoot the noisy Luddites...

I'm tired of this baloney too.

Seriously (for a moment...): It is done. Get over it. Use one if you wish, don't use one if you don't wish--but please do so without making a fuss over it (either way).

The woods are still there and still as enjoyable as they used to be.

Doug

 

[HH1]

Neil,

In your last comment, you said you enjoy using GPS from time to time and just knowing you have it in your pack changes your bushwhack's character, which I interpret as a pro-GPS statement.

But in your first comment in the thread starter, you said you feel GPS is lame.

So, for you, personally, where does GPS enjoyment end and the lame begin?

 

[Neil]

Neil,

In your last comment, you said you enjoy using GPS from time to time and just knowing you have it in your pack changes your bushwhack's character, which I interpret as a pro-GPS statement.

But in your first comment in the thread starter, you said you feel GPS is lame.

So, for you, personally, where does GPS enjoyment end and the lame begin?

Ha! I almost addressed that statement in a subsequent post. Perhaps a new GPS thread is required to fully explore this issue.

It's lame when I think it's lame but it's not lame when I am enjoying using it.

OK, lame response. How about, it's lame when you use it all the time to bushwhack, are dependant upon it and won't leave the trail without it. It's fun to use it from time to time, as in less than if say,10% of your mileage is gps guided. Just like I like to keep my M&C skills reasonably sharp so do I like maintaining my GPS skills at at least a basic level.

The comment about how it changes the bushwhack's character isn't pro-gps as far as I can tell. In fact, just knowing it's in the pack takes some of the ephemeral zing out of the hike because you know you can always use it as a soft option.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... if I ever start another GPS vs. map and compass thread feel free to shoot me.

I may be near the head of the line.

When you started the thread, I was hoping they'd be others like me who have embraced the GPS as compared to map & compass it's a vastly superior tool, despite the diehard m&c crowd - there are a few but not as many as I would have thought. After all - when you get on that plane heading cross country, do you expect the pilot and copilot to be using a map & compass? I think not.

I do lots of cross-country navigation (cross-country is Sierra-ese for bushwhacks). Now that I know how to use a GPS I wouldn't go back to a map and compass in my wildest dreams. It would be like tossing away my watch and using a sundial.

To each his own.

 

[mirabela]

I'm strictly a map & compass guy, and I think that GPS or no, those are skills everyone should have.

What impresses me about GPS, though, is the tremendous advantages it has when it comes to documenting one's route of travel and then communicating it to others.

 

[Neil]

After all - when you get on that plane heading cross country, do you expect the pilot and copilot to be using a map & compass?

Or how about undergoing surgery and the surgeon says he doesn't use the latest technology even though it's available to him because it makes the desired outcome too easy to achieve.

 

[timmus]

Fact : My Garmin 60csx died during our trip outwest.

This thread makes me realize I might be a lame person because I'm using a GPS to help me get to a trailless summit.

SO.... I'm not gonna get a new one, and if something happen to me I'll blame Neil (and VFTT).

(BTW, if you ever got problems with your 60csx-can't find any satellites anymore- pls PM me. I tried everything.)

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Or how about undergoing surgery and the surgeon says he doesn't use the latest technology even though it's available to him because it makes the desired outcome too easy to achieve.

Wow, that sounds a little too close to home! Hope it didn't happen to you.

I grew up with a couple of fellows who like to get involved with Revolutionary, or perhaps it's Civil War re-enactments. In any case - they get a big kick (pun intended) of firing old canons at mountainsides, using the large economy-size dogfood cans filled with concrete as projectiles, and shooting flintlocks in huge clouds of smoke. They have a blast (pun intended) and I've had fun watching them.

But, they don't pretend that those cannons and rifles are still the best way to conduct war.