[pct-l] Follow-up to the earlier GPS discussion

[Gary Schenk]

On 5/20/2010 8:37 AM, CHUCK CHELIN wrote:
>
> In terms of accuracy, GPS locations are several orders of magnitude better
> than compass-based locations.  When I hear someone criticize GPS accuracy
> I’m led to believe that they’ve never tried to locate their position on a
> topo’ map by triangulating from the peaks of surrounding mountains --
> assuming they can actually see peaks; assuming they know for sure which
> peaks they’re looking at; and assuming they can identify which of the many
> bumps on the ridge is actually the peak.  It’s particularly difficult in the
> Sierras where there are many peaks all strung together on ridges, but it’s a
> bit easier in the Pacific NW where the tall volcanoes usually stand
> prominent and alone.  There the problem is the peaks are mostly in a
> north-south line and it’s hard to get something at 90 degs. to form a
> triangle.

As a minimalist, rather than ultra-light, hiker I don't carry a GPS. 
It's basically unnecessary weight. Not only are you carrying the GPS, 
but also extra batteries and/or a gizmo to charge those batteries. A 
compass and map is more than sufficient for navigating a hiker. A 
commercial handheld GPS is not orders of magnitude more accurate than 
map and compass, depending on operator error, of course. An altimeter is 
much more useful and practical as a navigation aid, IMHO.

Most of my navigation is done only with a map. The ability to read a map 
and the terrain around you is a valuable skill that all hikers should 
develop.

YMMV HYOH, etc.

Gary