Gps users bottom of the league

[+currykev]

are they correct?

[+oldsoldier]

From a land navigation point of view, with which I have TONS of experience, I can understand that. With a map & compass, you use handrails, visual cues, pacecounts, etc, to get where you are going. With a GPS, you are constantly looking down, then up, then down...you dont get a large enough area to view. So, on that level, it kinda makes sense. However, as most of us walk on trails, I dont see how this would actually make a difference....

[+The Cache Hoppers]

I use Memory Map for caching - I can see everything ... I know where I am and I won't get lost - Big Brother is watching out for me

[+TheWhoUK]

Hi All

 

I've had a GPSr in my kit list for years and only used it for emergency or mobile navigation in large featureless open ground. I've been using map and compass for years and I'm a fairly competent navigator. I'd say using map and compass make you plan ahead plotting your course and therefore an experienced map reader would only look at map occasionally and would be looking for confidence boosters (features) along the leg all from the memory of route/leg in his/her head. Only pulling map out when things don’t add up in your mind. Map reading is a skill and like a muscle must be exercised, it’s an essential skill for those who wander up mountains and remote caches as if all the gadgets go wrong you need know how to get out.

 

As for the article, It’s all down to experience a competent person with GPSr technology would probably beat a poor map reader, and vice versa.

 

TheWhoUK

[+pklong]

I use Memory Map for caching - I can see everything ... I know where I am and I won't get lost - Big Brother is watching out for me

 

I think the gist of the article is that we rely on the GPS to tell us where we are, whereas with a map and compass you have to remember exactly where you are. Having memory map etc. won't help you if your batteries fail or half the files on your memory card mysteriously disappear* or you drop it and you no longer have a clue where you are.

 

* happened just a couple of weeks ago.

[+Stuey]

if all the gadgets go wrong you need know how to get out.

 

and if the map gets whipped out of your chilly mits by a sudden gust of wind and over a cliff, you'll want to switch to the GPS and follow the carefully pre-programmed route/tracklog that you uploaded to it to get back to the car, hehe

[+scottpa100]

I can't vouch for the GPS exactly because when I go caching, I just let the arrow show me the general route. But I cache along with OS maps so when I work out where a cache is, I can work out what my route in will be.

 

But I would say, with my method of caching, me map reading and then interpreting the features on the land in front of me has improved my map reading. When on mountains (my previous main walking haunts) unless on quiet mountains a well trodden path can be quite often be seen. Its when the weather gets nasty you need to know exactly where you are. With geocaching though, I've been in fields with multiple possible routes but knowing which direction I'm facing and being able to see shapes of fields on maps has helped no end.

 

GPS + Map =

[+MBFace]

and if the map gets whipped out of your chilly mits by a sudden gust of wind and over a cliff,

 

If you just rely on your hands . Our map travels in a map case with a cord grip on the lanyard converting it into a wriststrap.

 

MBF

[+The Cache Hoppers]

I use Memory Map for caching - I can see everything ... I know where I am and I won't get lost - Big Brother is watching out for me

 

I think the gist of the article is that we rely on the GPS to tell us where we are, whereas with a map and compass you have to remember exactly where you are. Having memory map etc. won't help you if your batteries fail or half the files on your memory card mysteriously disappear* or you drop it and you no longer have a clue where you are.

 

* happened just a couple of weeks ago.

My battery served me very well on a 12 mile hike around the Otmoor Ring (still had over 50% life at the end, six hours later, pub lunch included, hic) and I have back up files on a spare memory card - the girl scouts would be very proud of me. :-)

[+Happy Humphrey]

I've used a GPSr for walking for years now, and I can say that the conclusion of the study is absolute twaddle.

 

I can keep a steady pace up all day, and don't get slowed down at all by having to glance at the GPS screen on my wrist every few minutes (it's small, but I only take note of the arrow - which is big enough). I almost never have to stop for navigational reasons. It's just like walking a path that you know like the back of your hand, and what could be more simple? Plus, you get much more time to appreciate the surroundings rather than being forced to fiddle with a map and compass half the time. I do take a map as well, but more for helping interpret the surroundings than for any practical purpose.

 

Recently I had to resort to map and compass for a couple of days (after leaving the GPS charger back at home ) and found that I was forever stopping to check the map and take bearings. It was much slower than my normal method of simply following the arrow all day (obviously, I prepare the route beforehand).

 

I suspect that the study was badly set up (e.g. no training given to the GPS users, route stupidly short, no prepared route on the GPSr, buildings giving poor signal). Rubbish!

[+SidAndBob]

and if the map gets whipped out of your chilly mits by a sudden gust of wind and over a cliff, you'll want to switch to the GPS and follow the carefully pre-programmed route/tracklog that you uploaded to it to get back to the car, hehe

That's exactly what happened to me here. In over 5 years of regular GPSr assisted walking I have never once been let down by the technology.

I totally agree with HH's comments.

[+kennamatic]

It's no good deciding between the GPSr and a map. It's perfectly obvious in the article that you should actually be going with someone who knows the way and can show you. I for one willl definitely be leaving the GPS behind next time I go on a long walk of 157 to 325 yards!

[+careygang]

Typical twaddle of an academic wasting their research grant. For a true comparison of map reading v. GPS use, the GPS would need to be programmed with all the waypoints, thus giving a turn by turn route.

Oh, let me think, that would be like using the one in the car!

 

There is also no mention of the type of GPS used, chances are it was a hand held with no preprogrammed route. Now if they had used one with route info and voice output, there would have been no problem!

Edited April 9, 2008 by careygang

[+The Bongtwashes]

I imagine the reason GPS users walk slower and stop more often is because they are looking for Tupperware, and stopping to sign logs , whereas the map users don't realise there is a cache nearby .

[+MartyBartfast]

Well the article in the link was a pretty brief description of what was hopefully a thourough and properly conducted trial. If anyone's interested the whole paper is available here

 

which describes the method etc. I haven't had a chance to read it yet 'cos I'm off to a meeting.

[NickPick]

which describes the method etc. I haven't had a chance to read it yet 'cos I'm off to a meeting.

Download a copy to your PDA and read it in the meeting - that's what meetings are for isn't it?

[markandlynn]

Well the article in the link was a pretty brief description of what was hopefully a thourough and properly conducted trial. If anyone's interested the whole paper is available here

 

which describes the method etc. I haven't had a chance to read it yet 'cos I'm off to a meeting.

 

Read it its a poorly done survey or rather its biased towards the paper map and against people unfamiliar with gps equipment, they went on six routes of between 144 and 298 metres in length in an urban environment with no tall buildings to interfere with the signal. Mobile phone based GPS and mapping

 

Ive used memory map on hills and a map i know which one i prefer allthough i try to carry a paper map in the bag just in case the 40 batteries im carrying are not enough

[+pklong]

Well the article in the link was a pretty brief description of what was hopefully a thourough and properly conducted trial. If anyone's interested the whole paper is available here

 

which describes the method etc. I haven't had a chance to read it yet 'cos I'm off to a meeting.

 

A quick scan through will reveal it to be a very flawed survey.

 

* Users unfamiliar with the GPS Device (a mobile phone with sat nav)

* Some very experienced map users in the map group.

* A Psychology study

* Women vastly outnumbered men**

 

** hehe

Edited April 9, 2008 by pklong

[+Haggis Hunter]

I have always believed that only a fool will go into the hills without a map. I have never trusted my GPS to navigate for me whilst walking in the hills. In fact I only bought a GPS as I found out about geocaching. Short routes down paths is a totally different matter.

 

I do believe that a GPS does have a purpose though. It is good to confirm your actual location, it can save your life if you lose your map. But using a GPS alone is just plain stupid, it's technology at the end of the day and can fail. Being well prepared with a map in a map case with compass and both attached to you never fails. Of course you do need to know how to use it and I think the article expresses this?

 

So use a GPS device by all means but always take a proper route description and a map & compass to navigate with. If you do not know how to use a map and compass - learn.

To say that it is absolute twaddle defies belief. But then I have relied upon maps for years.

[+Haggis Hunter]

Ive used memory map on hills and a map i know which one i prefer allthough i try to carry a paper map in the bag just in case the 40 batteries im carrying are not enough

That appears a sensible compromise to me, MM on the GPS gives a picture of your location. If you have to resort to the paper map you already have a fixed picture of your location that is identical to your paper map.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Having read the study, the methodology used had some serious weaknesses. So the only conclusion you could draw is that a certain type of GPS unit, used in map mode with "overhead" view with a particular zoom level, and being operated by inexperienced users, tends to lead to some problems in orientation and is not as good as knowing the route. What a surprise! (not).

 

As I suspected from the start, not a test of whether GPS or map is more or less efficient at guiding you around an unfamiliar area: so any such general conclusion is definitely twaddle.

 

Like map reading, operating even a simple GPSr requires some practice and experience. Although you should be able to "get by" almost straight away just by having an introduction to the unit's functions, getting it to work efficiently in various circumstances requires quite a bit of practice.

 

I've used one recently to get around an unfamiliar city - much better than a map, but it was crucial to be able to zoom in and out, and to use the direction arrow at times rather than the map view.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I have always believed that only a fool will go into the hills without a map. I have never trusted my GPS to navigate for me whilst walking in the hills. In fact I only bought a GPS as I found out about geocaching. Short routes down paths is a totally different matter.

Why not prepare a route, load it into the GPSr then follow it (always stuffing a map into your rucksack as a backup). That's what I do and I've crossed some pretty "serious" country. If the worst happens and the GPS fails (it never has in many years, but it could happen) I'd get the map out (assuming that the spare GPS has also failed).

 

In remote country it seems to be a lot less dangerous to have a GPS route to follow than a compass bearing (following a compass bearing has an inherent danger that isn't present in a properly prepared GPS route).

 

I do believe that a GPS does have a purpose though. It is good to confirm your actual location, it can save your life if you lose your map. But using a GPS alone is just plain stupid, it's technology at the end of the day and can fail. Being well prepared with a map in a map case with compass and both attached to you never fails. Of course you do need to know how to use it and I think the article expresses this?

I don't think that the original study has much relevance to this type of situation.

[+MartyBartfast]

which describes the method etc. I haven't had a chance to read it yet 'cos I'm off to a meeting.

Download a copy to your PDA and read it in the meeting - that's what meetings are for isn't it?

Yep, and don't I wish I had, unfortunately your advice came 10 mins too late

 

Anyway Just out of the meeting and had a quick squint at it over a bowl of soup and I can only agree that this was a poorly conducted study, all but one of the GPS group had never used a GPS while the map group consisted of students of urban planning who used maps regularly!

[+Haggis Hunter]

I have always believed that only a fool will go into the hills without a map. I have never trusted my GPS to navigate for me whilst walking in the hills. In fact I only bought a GPS as I found out about geocaching. Short routes down paths is a totally different matter.

Why not prepare a route, load it into the GPSr then follow it (always stuffing a map into your rucksack as a backup). That's what I do and I've crossed some pretty "serious" country. If the worst happens and the GPS fails (it never has in many years, but it could happen) I'd get the map out (assuming that the spare GPS has also failed).

 

In remote country it seems to be a lot less dangerous to have a GPS route to follow than a compass bearing (following a compass bearing has an inherent danger that isn't present in a properly prepared GPS route).

 

I have done that in the past, but used the GPS to confirm my position rather than guide me to the location. Unless you are using MM live on the ground, if your GPS fails (not everyone can afford a spare!) you may not know your exact location on the ground, especially if you are not orientated to the map at the time!

 

I presume your inherent danger is how far you will be out for the final location? I have navigated across the Brecon Beacons in the pitch dark with fog, without torch and across uneven ground. After a km I was out by about 50 metres, but when you are talking life and death the knowledge on how to navigate in such conditions is far more important than relying on technology.

This was done during a military exercise, a few days later I guided a section in for a night attack, on the way back the commander took the lead. Guess what? Despite knowing how to map read he decided to use his GPS to lead us back, and we crossed a river that we never crossed on the way there!!

 

As for the standard of the survey, it may have been poor, but I believe they are correct.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I have done that in the past, but used the GPS to confirm my position rather than guide me to the location. Unless you are using MM live on the ground, if your GPS fails (not everyone can afford a spare!) you may not know your exact location on the ground, especially if you are not orientated to the map at the time!

I accept that you COULD get into trouble in some circumstances. But in practice, having the GPSr fail completely in a situation where you can't fall back on some sort of compass bearing is low risk (in Britain, anyway, where you can generally aim for a path/road/stream to get out of real trouble, based on a rough idea of your location). Assuming that you're reasonably sensible, the risk is probably lower than tripping and breaking your leg. But I would take it that a lone walker would have a spare GPSr, or would be with another walker who has another GPSr, before ignoring the compass altogether.

 

I'm only taking issue with your assertion that you shouldn't use GPS as your primary navigation tool, which seems silly to me when it's clearly superior in use (despite what the study claims).

I presume your inherent danger is how far you will be out for the final location? I have navigated across the Brecon Beacons in the pitch dark with fog, without torch and across uneven ground. After a km I was out by about 50 metres, but when you are talking life and death the knowledge on how to navigate in such conditions is far more important than relying on technology.

The danger is that, with all the weaving around in rough, featureless terrain and poor visibility you stray from the line of the compass bearing (as you indicate above). GPS naturally corrects this as it still points to the waypoint: but with the compass you have to keep on taking new bearings unless you can walk in a straight line all the time. That's not always possible, and you can be halfway down into the wrong valley before you realise (yes, I've done it!). I learnt map and compass work on Kinder Scout and Bleaklow in the 1970's (before all the paths appeared), including a 20-mile crossing on an exact bearing (i.e. having to constantly stop and send someone forward to keep on the line - that was tedious, but not as bad as losing 1500 metres of accuracy over the trip as in your case!).

[+Haggis Hunter]

With the exception of when we have been with people who know the area and are guiding us, any cacher who has been out with me on the hills will confirm that I always use the map first. I was night caching and fearful as one member of the group was heading straight towards a cliff. I knew this as I could see it on the map, he couldn't.

 

We could go round and round in circles on here, but as far as I am concerned a GPS is a piece of secondary equipment when it comes to navigation on the hills, unless it has a built in map such as MM. I'm not saying that I don't make errors map reading, in fact I have made a few, but without constant use the skill may fade, then a map is of no use if you can't remember how to use it.

 

I have also done several thousand miles of sailing. Only once have I ever had a skipper who relied solely on the GPS. He also nearly killed us because he relied on the GPS and not his charts. I never slept for the rest of that night, and thankfully it was the last leg of our journey.

 

Edit to add that I wouldn't lose over 1500 metres over 20 miles, only an idiot would allow a mistake to go that far. I do realise that you had taken the calculation from my 50 metres to 1 km journey, but that was just snippet of an example from an extremely long nights navigating.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Haggis Hunter

[+Happy Humphrey]

Well, I suppose we basically agree that relying blindly on a single GPSr in the wilds is not a good plan, so I'll stop hijacking the thread now...

[Archangel_UK]

they are both tools to be used where appropriate;besides carrying a compass and map for rural areas is just good sense .

[Jantaculum]

Researchers have found that walkers using only a GPS (Global Positioning System) to walk with were actually slower, walked further and stopped more often than people using a traditional map and compass.

 

Nothing wrong with being slow and stopping more often unless you're in a race!

[+The Blorenges]

A quick scan through will reveal it to be a very flawed survey.

 

* Users unfamiliar with the GPS Device (a mobile phone with sat nav)

* Some very experienced map users in the map group.

* A Psychology study

* Women vastly outnumbered men**

 

 

** hehe

 

 

What, exactly, were you trying to say there, Mr Long?

 

MrsB