Hi forum,
One thing I don't understand, I hear many say that they won't use a GPS and only rely on a map and compass, because they say the map and compass are far superior? I feel confused when I hear this. I don't know if I'm missing something here? I even came across a website which gave one of their experts a GPS and the other a map and compass, to test effectiveness. The guy with the GPS took so much less time finding where to travel versus the lady with the map and compass, especially when on the "off-trail" section of the test. However at the end, the website's guy expert said he would hands down use the maps and compass over a GPS if he was forced to choose between the two, because you don't have to worry about batteries or reception.
One thing I'm very confused about: GPS critics say if you're at the bottom of a narrow canyon or under thick vegetation, the map and compass is better because of reception? So what I don't understand, in order to find where you are at with just a map and compass, you need to find landmarks in order to triangulate. Half of the time when I'm out hiking, the trees are high enough I can't see any landmarks to triangulate with the map and compass. However, when I pull out my Garmin Oregon 450 GPS, it tells me exactly where I'm at and says it's within 15 ft accuracy. I can understand the concern about GPS reception if you're on the north face of Mount McKinley in Alaska where you're further north than where the GPS satellites pass by, affecting your signal, but for general use within the Continental U.S.? I also notice that taking bearings and heading to a place with a compass only works if you have landmarks along the way to keep yourself in a straight line, but half of the time the trees make that difficult; the same for taking back bearings with a traditional compass.
Other things about when I use the traditional map/compass: Subtracting or adding 5 degrees from a compass bearing to hit a "handrail" to follow to a waypoint often takes me through weird terrain to get there. Then also when it's pitch dark and I'm on a trail which hasn't been maintained in 30 years, it's difficult to find my way back, and impossible to take bearings with the compass mirror sight. On the other hand, my GPS is easy to see in the dark and I can just follow my "track" back to where I had come from (very easy). I don't fear running out of battery because I usually carry three backup pairs of batteries, and check their charge before my next outing.
Map/compass supporters say you may drop your GPS and it'll break, so use the map and compass instead? For a while I had a protractor compass in my backpack, but then from all the pressure the liquid would leak out of it, to the point of making it so taking bearings wasn't accurate anymore. My Garmin Oregon 450 is rubberized and I've dropped it on rocks so many times and it still works, even if I don't like the scratched rubber look. I upgraded from the thrashed protractor compass to a mirror sight compass you can fold over to stop that pressure on the encased liquid compartment, but I still feel skepticism. Is that legitimate skepticism?
The only reasons I carry a map and compass for backup is because it's always possible the Garmin could have software issues, and USGS maps tend to be more detailed/much easier to scroll across than the GPS maps. I'll use the compass for finding out which mountain peaks in the distance are which, because I find compasses more accurate than the electronic GPS compasses if you're not actually moving.
Is there something I'm missing here about why there are all these people who prefer the map/compass over hiking GPSr's. I'm just trying to become a more educated navigator.