gps systems

On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:34:05 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| So the answer, as usual, is 'it depends' .. it depends in what sort of
| walking you are doing, where, and how prepared in advance you happen to
| be (or 'like to be'😉. Navigating 'cultivated'/'Industrialised' areas, or
| in fog/whiteout conditions, a compass is less use than a chocolate
| teapot.

Now what did I do before GPS came on the market?
IIRC I happily used map and compass.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

The message <[email hidden]>
from Dave Fawthrop <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

I used my compass this summer. I needed to go roughly north, on my
beloved moors without landmarks, the compass is easier to use than the gps.

Regular readers will know that I am not a great fan of GPS navigation
but in my opinion that is one of the few scenarios where the GPS is the
clear winner - as long as you know where you are going and have a
waypoint to use for a go-to. Trying to maintain a straight line over
rough moorland is a pain but with a go-to the GPS will still point in
the direction you need to go however many diversions you may take as you
follow the easiest line.

FWIW I have used my compass several times in the recent past. Mostly to
orient the map but on Expedition 16 I used it to establish the direction
from where we left the Captains Road to the point on the ridge across
the depression that I wanted to reach. Over the years my most frequent
use of my compass has probably been in mist to make sure I am still
heading in the direction I thought I was.

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 53 summits
New - 27 (Marilyns 13, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 26 (Marilyns 10, Nuttalls 17, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

In article <BF5C344D.45EAB%andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk>, Andy
Howell <andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk.?.invalid> writes

Quoted message said:

The more basic
machines from either Magellan or Garmin would be fine.

The only thing I would be wary of with the really cheap ones is that
some of them don't have a computer interface. That means you can't
update the firmware when the manufacturer fixes a bug and you can't down
/ upload data.

The models to avoid are the Garmin Geko 101 and the Magellan explorist
100, 200 and 300.

--

Dominic Sexton

Quoted message said:

True on =moors=, but try finding the stile from one field to the next in
arable/pasture land without benefit of a GPS loaded with waypoints for
all the ROW/field boundary intersections. No fun. None at all.

We managed...... Still do.. So bloody fiddly inputting the GRs...

Still use mine mainly as a pedometer, but also as a rather useful back
up in case things go the shape of a perry producer.

Richard Webb

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful
person Richard Webb <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True on =moors=, but try finding the stile from one field to the next in
arable/pasture land without benefit of a GPS loaded with waypoints for
all the ROW/field boundary intersections. No fun. None at all.

We managed...... Still do.. So bloody fiddly inputting the GRs...

? I can digitise and load 30km of route (~150 waypoints) in about 5
minutes with Tracklogs .. how are you doing it?

I guess it also depends on the state of your footpaths - where the
stiles are clearly visible and the paths are well walked and/or
waymarked it isn't an issue. It's locating the overgrown ones, the
footbridges at the bottom of overgrown gullies, and stuff like that.

BG (Before GPS) I just used to walk the length of the field boundary
poking the hedge hopefully until I found something. Possible, but no
fun. Still have to do that when the stile is not on the mapped ROW, (or
where there isn't actually a stile at all).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

True on =moors=, but try finding the stile from one field to the next in
arable/pasture land without benefit of a GPS loaded with waypoints for
all the ROW/field boundary intersections. No fun. None at all.

Eh? Assuming you can't go in the general direction and just *look* for
the stile for some reason, you can aim off slightly to one side until
you intersect the boundary, then walk along the boundary to the stile.
Orienteers do this sort of thing all the time, /and they do it for fun/.

Quoted message said:

Navigating 'cultivated'/'Industrialised' areas, or
in fog/whiteout conditions, a compass is less use than a chocolate teapot.

A chocolate teapot is very useful, because it contains a large supply of
chocolate. Similarly a compass in the above conditions can be very
useful, which is how people managed with them for a long time before GPS
came on the scene.
Not that I'm trying to say a GPS in a real whiteout [1] isn't a nice
thing to have along, but rumours of uselessness of a compass are rather
exaggerated

Pete.

[1] by which I mean conditions where you can't see /anything/ except
your own body and equipment, and possibly companions. Not even the
ground, certainly no sort of horizon.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

BG (Before GPS) I just used to walk the length of the field boundary
poking the hedge hopefully until I found something.

Given that a 6 figure GR actually gives you a 100m square and symbols on
maps are considerably over scale, using a GPS to get to a "point" on a
map isn't quite as "pin point" as most people think. If you look up
"aiming off" in a map/compass navigation book you'll find similarly easy
ways to a GPS for finding a point along a boundary.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

BG (Before GPS) I just used to walk the length of the field boundary
poking the hedge hopefully until I found something.

Given that a 6 figure GR actually gives you a 100m square and symbols on
maps are considerably over scale, using a GPS to get to a "point" on a
map isn't quite as "pin point" as most people think. If you look up
"aiming off" in a map/compass navigation book you'll find similarly easy
ways to a GPS for finding a point along a boundary.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

BG (Before GPS) I just used to walk the length of the field boundary
poking the hedge hopefully until I found something.

Given that a 6 figure GR actually gives you a 100m square and symbols
on maps are considerably over scale, using a GPS to get to a "point" on
a map isn't quite as "pin point" as most people think. If you look up
"aiming off" in a map/compass navigation book you'll find similarly
easy ways to a GPS for finding a point along a boundary.

Pete.

I find that points plotted on a 1:25,000 Tracklogs map are much more
accurate than 100m, and are always within 10m, unless the map is wrong,
or paths have been diverted.
--
Gordon Harris

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

BG (Before GPS) I just used to walk the length of the field boundary
poking the hedge hopefully until I found something.

Given that a 6 figure GR actually gives you a 100m square and symbols
on maps are considerably over scale, using a GPS to get to a "point" on
a map isn't quite as "pin point" as most people think.

True, however on numerous occasions following my GPS route/waypoints has
led me almost exactly (+/- 3m) to a well buried stile, bridge, etc.
which would have taken ages to find by other means. Sometimes I've even
walked into the stile while hacking through the hedge where the GPS says
the route should be.

Yes, you can use a compass, if you know exactly where you are (several
minutes work), and exactly where the stile should be (more work,
assuming the boundary hasn't been moved) .. really is so much easier to
enter a waypoint on the PC and walk to it on the ground.

That's not even getting into problems with compasses when there are no
obvious sighting points for triangulating, or when visibility is lousy.

Quoted message said:

If you look up "aiming off" in a map/compass navigation book you'll
find similarly easy ways to a GPS for finding a point along a boundary.

I'd dispute the 'similarly easy', having tried it. You're (somewhere) in
a field, the opposite side is 500m away, some distance from the RH
corner of the far boundary is a stile .. except the RH corner may not be
where it shows on the map, if someone took a hedge out, and the 'some
distance' is really hard to determine from a paper map (to better than
~20m, which is a lot of hedge).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

True on =moors=, but try finding the stile from one field to the next
in arable/pasture land without benefit of a GPS loaded with waypoints
for all the ROW/field boundary intersections. No fun. None at all.

Eh? Assuming you can't go in the general direction and just *look* for
the stile for some reason, you can aim off slightly to one side until
you intersect the boundary, then walk along the boundary to the stile.
Orienteers do this sort of thing all the time, /and they do it for fun/.

Well they're daft then. 8>. I hate walking arbitrary lengths of hedgerow
looking for a stile which may not be there at all, and wondering if I've
gone too far yet. Even worse wandering along the bottom of a wooded
gully looking for an alleged footbridge, while trying not to fall in the
brook.

With the GPS I head straight for the proper spot, carefully scan 5-10m
each way, and if I don't find one I log an obstruction, and find the
best way through.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Navigating 'cultivated'/'Industrialised' areas, or in fog/whiteout
conditions, a compass is less use than a chocolate teapot.

A chocolate teapot is very useful, because it contains a large supply
of chocolate.

Which is why it is more use than a compass in a whiteout - you can eat
it while awaiting rescue. OK, the compass is helpful if you have some
idea where you are .. if not, you're stuffed.

Quoted message said:

Similarly a compass in the above conditions can be very useful, which
is how people managed with them for a long time before GPS came on the
scene.

Nah, in cultivated / industrialised areas I KNOW which way I am facing,
and the next boundary is usually within sight. You have to work really
hard to get comprehensively lost in a wheatfield. Compass not much use
at all - I wouldn't even bother carrying one until/unless I get out on
large open commons, moors, mountains, forests, etc.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Yes, you can use a compass, if you know exactly where you are (several
minutes work), and exactly where the stile should be (more work,
assuming the boundary hasn't been moved) .. really is so much easier to
enter a waypoint on the PC and walk to it on the ground.

Too many assumptions in there. You know just as well where the stile is
meant to be whether you have a GPS or not if you're working from a map
to start with. And it's only "several minutes work" finding your
position if you have a time where you /don't/ know where you are
preceding it. The best way to navigate with map and compass is know
where you are all the time, and that's not actually difficult with
practise. I can quite understand people prefer not to put in the
practise but for those that do a GPS is /not/ significantly easier for
what you're talking about. If you find it easier for you then it'll be
easier for you, but that's not the same as an order of magnitude better
for anyone.

Quoted message said:

I'd dispute the 'similarly easy', having tried it. You're (somewhere) in
a field

But as above, no reason you can't pin down "somewhere" very well indeed.
For example, the fist place you'll be is at the first stile where you
get into the field, and you know /exactly/ where that is.

Quoted message said:

the opposite side is 500m away, some distance from the RH
corner of the far boundary is a stile .. except the RH corner may not be
where it shows on the map, if someone took a hedge out, and the 'some
distance' is really hard to determine from a paper map (to better than
~20m, which is a lot of hedge).

I don't see why you're hung up on the RH corner though. From your
current known location (the first stile) you take a bearing on the
destination stile from the map. If you take that bearing you'll
probably miss by a margin of error, but you don't know which way, so you
adjust your bearing a few degrees off to the left. When you arrive at
the hedge you know you'll be slightly off to the left, so you move right
a few meters until you find it. The RH corner has never had to come
into the operation at all. So I'm not quite sure what you tried if
you're hung up on using distant landmarks...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I don't see why you're hung up on the RH corner though. From your
current known location (the first stile) you take a bearing on the
destination stile from the map. If you take that bearing you'll
probably miss by a margin of error, but you don't know which way, so
you adjust your bearing a few degrees off to the left. When you arrive
at the hedge you know you'll be slightly off to the left, so you move
right a few meters until you find it.

LOL! This demonstrates just how inaccurate magnetic compass
navigation is - in practice, and I used the exact system when crossing
the Kinder plateau for the first time.

To sum up all these pointless arguments, GPS v Compass, if you want to
enjoy a navigation exercise take a compass, if you want to enjoy the
walk, take a GPS.

I use the map more than the GPS, but the compass stays in the sack in
case I lose the GPS and the map.
--
Gordon Harris

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> said
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the opposite side is 500m away, some distance from the RH corner of
the far boundary is a stile .. except the RH corner may not be where
it shows on the map, if someone took a hedge out, and the 'some
distance' is really hard to determine from a paper map (to better than
~20m, which is a lot of hedge).

I don't see why you're hung up on the RH corner though. From your
current known location (the first stile) you take a bearing on the
destination stile from the map. If you take that bearing you'll
probably miss by a margin of error, but you don't know which way, so
you adjust your bearing a few degrees off to the left. When you arrive
at the hedge you know you'll be slightly off to the left, so you move
right a few meters until you find it.

'A few degrees' multiplied by 500m is an awful lot of hedge away from
where you want to be (as I said), assuming you can even calculate the
required heading 'to a few degrees' in the first place (and then walk it
accurately). I can calculate to about 5 degrees, on a good day, but
whether I can walk that accurately depends on the terrain.

I've tried lots of methods, and the one that works for me, best, and
fastest, is to zoom in to about 1:1000 scale on a tracklogs 1:25k map,
place a waypoint at the field/ROW intersection, and then use the GPS to
walk to it. Takes less than 15 seconds per waypoint, works in rain snow
or fog, works if most of the terrain doesn't match the map, or if you
have to divert around a bog or herd of cows .. just works (unless the
ROW has been moved of course, or unless there really is no stile/bridge
where there should be .. although I often find the footings left over
from collapsed bridges).

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person Peter
Clinch <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Eh? Assuming you can't go in the general direction and just *look* for
the stile for some reason, you can aim off slightly to one side until you
intersect the boundary, then walk along the boundary to the stile.
Orienteers do this sort of thing all the time, /and they do it for fun/.

Well they're daft then. 8>.

Er no. It actually IS fun to pick detail off a map, relate it to the
landscape using your eyes with confirmation from the compass where required.

Roy.

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful
person Roy <roy@?.?.invalid> said

Quoted message said:

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the wonderful person Peter
Clinch <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

Eh? Assuming you can't go in the general direction and just *look* for
the stile for some reason, you can aim off slightly to one side until you
intersect the boundary, then walk along the boundary to the stile.
Orienteers do this sort of thing all the time, /and they do it for fun/.

Well they're daft then. 8>.

Er no. It actually IS fun to pick detail off a map, relate it to the
landscape using your eyes with confirmation from the compass where required.

I guess YMMV .. I'm typically doing it for 5-6 hours at a stretch with
items which frequently can't be seen with eyes until you kick them (the
state of stiles/bridges in many parishes round here is somewhat short of
acceptable).

I bet some people go Geo-caching without a GPS too, right. Also probably
climb hills with one leg in a cast - anything to increase the challenge.
8>.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

Go with God my friend....go with God...
through the hazardous pilgrimage of life.
Good and ill emanate from God.
We are all being tested my friend, all of us.
So take heart, you are not alone.

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

'A few degrees' multiplied by 500m is an awful lot of hedge away from
where you want to be (as I said), assuming you can even calculate the
required heading 'to a few degrees' in the first place (and then walk it
accurately). I can calculate to about 5 degrees, on a good day, but
whether I can walk that accurately depends on the terrain.

It's not that much hedge, according to my calculator. To calculate the
heading "to a few degrees" you have a very good base bearing directly
from the map and as long as your mag variation adjustment isn't miles
off it should stay that way.

Quoted message said:

I've tried lots of methods, and the one that works for me, best, and
fastest

.... for you, is the way you do it now. I'm not arguing the fact, just
pointing out that compass work isn't necessarily significantly more
difficult in other hands. Judging from your worrying about distant
corners of fields and how accurately you can calculate a bearing, the
ways you've used with a compass aren't necessarily optimum or the same
as others use. I'm not saying go back to map and compass, just saying
that it won't necessarily be as awkward for /anyone/ using one as it's
proved for you.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Gordon said:

LOL! This demonstrates just how inaccurate magnetic compass
navigation is - in practice

But the point is that most of the navigation is done with the /map/.

Quoted message said:

To sum up all these pointless arguments, GPS v Compass, if you want to
enjoy a navigation exercise take a compass, if you want to enjoy the
walk, take a GPS.

But what if you enjoy the walk in part because of the navigation?

Quoted message said:

I use the map more than the GPS, but the compass stays in the sack in
case I lose the GPS and the map.

Did a Corbett and a Munro on Sunday, cloud was in and out the whole time
over about 500m. Didn't have the GPS with me, only took the compass out
for a brief check on the top of the Munro (about 75% of the way along
the route) and again a few minutes later, then put it away.

The compass is in significant part a tool to help you use the map.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

KEITHHASLER said:

Im thinking of getting GPS system
....

Slightly OT, but ....

.... in this entire thread nobody mentions geocaching (www.geochaching.com)

I know there are hardened walkers out there who pooh pooh such frivolous
activity, but I find it is a great way to help to choose the odd
interesting route, and the children love it as a way of adding interest to
a day out. There are hundreds of caches all over the country - some in
hard terrain. (Logging one in North Wales next week that will need
climbing gear!)

And as somebody said: "I've finally found something to do with my GPS
that my wife doesn't laugh at" :-)

Back to Keith's question, I would echo many of the sentiments in this
thread. I mainly use my GPS as a track log so I can plot them on a map
later (or even better these days - on Google Earth, which I also use for
planning routes before I set out). And it is good to know it is in my bag
(usually in the top pocket of my rucksack where it gets good reception)
when the fog comes down.

For geocaching almost any GPS set will do - though the ability to upload
the coordinates makes things a bit easier.

For planning long routes I'd say that a program like GPSU is almost
essential, and it provides a link into Google Earth for showing your
friends where you went!

Jell