Cell phones and hiking

[Neil]

It's called a bearing to a waypoint...

(In a Garmin unit, just execute a "goto" on the waypoint.)

When following a route (sequence of waypoints), the Garmin GPSes show a course line (the line connecting the waypoints) regardless of the user's location. I wish they had the option of showing a bearing to the next waypoint of a route (in addition to the course line).

Doug

I meant on the ground ground, like a 2 foot wide, bright yellow line leading ahead to the next wp.

My Garmin (Rino) has the option of either showing the course line from one's current position or from the starting point. I think what you're wishing is to see both. In the navigation screen you have the option of toggling between course pointer and bearing pointer. However, I've gotta feeling you already know that...

 

[DougPaul]

I meant on the ground ground, like a 2 foot wide, bright yellow line leading ahead to the next wp.

Still needs some digital navi-glasses...

My Garmin (Rino) has the option of either showing the course line from one's current position or from the starting point. I think what you're wishing is to see both. In the navigation screen you have the option of toggling between course pointer and bearing pointer. However, I've gotta feeling you already know that...

I was talking about adding a bearing line to the route display (which displays the course overlaid on a map).

I am aware of the choice between bearing and course when executing a goto on a waypoint.

Thanks anyhoo,

Doug

 

[mavs00]

The first and most serious is the person who feels in a recreational situation that he or she can make the judgement to take risks he or she would not otherwise do, since they know they have the security of external electronic assistance to bail them out. Dangerous thinking indeed. A similar argument may apply to carrying a GPS as a "crutch" (more reliant upon than an "aid") to what adequate map and compass skills should already completely provide to the wilderness navigator.

Totally off the subject of cell phones, which I somtimes carry, but generally forget to "put in the pack" come hike time .

As it pertains to GPS, I use one quite a bit for bushwhacking. I recently find myself spending a CONSIDERABLE time "off trail". It certainly is true that initally, the security of the GPS gave me confindence to go places that otherwise I might not felt comfortable going, despite the fact that I have descent "map and compass" skills. I consider myself very "in tune" visually with my surroundings, so while hiking "off trail" making my way, often using the GPS to "ground" me, I have found that my VISUAL TERRAIN READING skills have gone through the roof. IT seems to me that I'm getting much better at my visual terrain reading skills and am depending less on the GPS unit as I go.

Ask some of the people I regularly hike with (Peakbagr, Rik, Peak_bagr, Bushwhacker and others), I generally take and active role in terrain reading, route finding and overall navigation because I'm very interesting in learning the specific woodcraft that will allow for "totally" free backcountry travel. I'm gaining confidence in my own personal skills every hike and have reached a level that even if I "lose the map" or "the GPS" craps out, I'm be able to make my way, well enough to survive in the ADK's for a few days (I should note I pre-plan hikes quite a bit and know a great deal before even going in).

So, while you are correct in an abstract way, we must realize that SOME tools allow you to travel at the EDGE of your comfort zone just enough to facilitate REAL learning and practical skill development that may come into play in more trying situations.

 

[Neil]

IT seems to me that I'm getting much better at my visual terrain reading skills and am depending less on the GPS unit as I go.

I find that so interesting because I've come to the gps from the opposit end. After years of bushwhacking in Canada (one very interesting trip was done in the dark crossing huge Lake Winnipeg and picking up the outlet perfectly thanks to the compass bearings we had figured out at home) and some winter trailless high peak adventures in the ADKs I got myself a GPS this January. I've basically been putting myself through an immmersion gps course and am starting to get proficient. The thing I loved about map and compass travel was the up close and personal reading of the terrain. While the gps is addictive it takes something away from the feeling of accomplishment and I keep saying I'm going to leave it at home on the next trip out...

 

[mavs00]

I find that so interesting because I've come to the gps from the opposit end............

I should have noted. It was a progression for me, I had good "map and compass skills' but when I started with the GPS, i put my nose to it and followed it like a lemming. My family would often laugh and tease me that I'd smack dead into trees without seeing it due to non-attentiveness to the way forward. But as time went on I'd lift my head more often and then I prgressed to "Okay, I should soon be coming upon a cleft (or fissure) that will funnell me up/down a slode". Then I'd look up to the terrain features and try to spot the said cleft/fissure and then I'd put my nose back into the unit.

From there it was "okay, I'm looking for a drainage that appears on my GPS" (I have a eTrex vista, with specific topo data loaded) then I'd look around at the terrain AND ITS SUBTLE FEATURES in order to find it, and BAM, when I did visually, it would just confirm what I was expecting to see. Pretty soon, I spent less and less time looking at the GPS and more time looking at the terrain, AND STUDYING IT for things that I was expecting to see.

I do the same now, but it's like I have this map image in my head and I am continually matching terrain features I physically see to it. I've found it has not steered me wrong often. When it has, I have and aid (several actually) to make sure not going crazy.

p.s. This is for 'off trail' stuff only, On trail, well.... just follow the little markers

 

[Nessmuk]

I should have noted. It was a progression for me, I had good "map and compass skills' but when I started with the GPS, i put my nose to it and followed it like a lemming. My family would often laugh and tease me that I'd smack dead into trees without seeing it due to non-attentiveness to the way forward. But as time went on I'd lift my head more often and then I prgressed to "Okay, I should soon be coming upon a cleft (or fissure) that will funnell me up/down a slode". Then I'd look up to the terrain features and try to spot the said cleft/fissure and then I'd put my nose back into the unit.

From there it was "okay, I'm looking for a drainage that appears on my GPS" (I have a eTrex vista, with specific topo data loaded) then I'd look around at the terrain AND ITS SUBTLE FEATURES in order to find it, and BAM, when I did visually, it would just confirm what I was expecting to see. Pretty soon, I spent less and less time looking at the GPS and more time looking at the terrain, AND STUDYING IT for things that I was expecting to see.

I do the same now, but it's like I have this map image in my head and I am continually matching terrain features I physically see to it. I've found it has not steered me wrong often. When it has, I have and aid (several actually) to make sure not going crazy.

Mavs, this and your previous post, thats exactly it! I've seen those lemmings. But now you've got the map and compass thing down pat with reading those SUBTLE FEATURES, AND you have discovered the joys of observation and precison terrain navigation. It's that little "high" and satisfaction you get from being able to point to the tiniest squiggle in a contour line and say... "that fixes where I am now", and to do it consistently in any terrain or dense foliage cover. You can because you are in tune with your surroundings and use all your senses as you go. You truly can bushwhack navigate miles to anywhere (excluding expansive featureless tundra or desert, uncommon in the NE) without feeling lost at any point. It's amazing what you see with a little pre-trip map study and a lot of on-trip observation. I grew up learning this stuff before GPS came about so I didn't get there the same way you did. I spent a lot of time traveling between obvious fix points (such as ponds or streams I couldn't miss), an hour or more, without knowing much about where I was. Gradually I learned it was possible to always know my position better and better.

I do own a GPS unit for use in my SAR squad, but I haven't carried it for personal recreational hiking in the field in years. The few early times I did carry it, I hated the temptation to either play or to "confirm" my position that I already knew from reading the landscape with map. Worse yet, it usually resulted in slapping myself on the forehead for being a dummy about not observing the natural clues clearly laid out before me. Much better to learn by letting the terrain teach you. The GPS stays home now and only gets batteries inserted when I introduce it as a useful working tool for SAR or surveying during a teaching lesson to the curious.

When hiking in flat uninteresting terrain between interesting locations, I hardly ever need to know where I am to a precision of 10 feet, though I bet I'm rarely much beyond one or two hundred feet off. It wont be long before a subtle change in slope will tell me much more precisely where I am. Change of any kind in terrain is your friend. Nature provides dozens of clues all along the way no matter if I have a visual of a distant mountain or if I can't see more than 30 feet in any direction. If I am wrong for some reason, it wont be long before the clues don't any longer add up - its all part of the process of assembling what you are given and building experience to not be wrong. I can't think of many times when I would need better precision that it wouldn't be pretty obvious by observing the immediate vacinity where I am standing.

But I get caried away with all that with the high feeling of terrain navigation and bushwhack... that's just me. I've taught many dozens of people the method in class and field, some get it and like it and some don't, though it takes a lot of practice to feel comfortable at it. Sounds like you have a bit of it too though. Congratulations.

 

[RoySwkr]

Sigh. One more thing I don't understand. I have about five extension phones on my home line, and the phone company doesn't care. If I make a long distance call from any extension phone, they just charge me for a long distance call. THey are happy and so am I.

It just shows your age When I was a kid, your monthly bill was higher if you had extensions, it was a way for the phone company to get more money from those willing to pay for convenience. The charge may go away someday with cell phones too.

As far as the multiple towers issue, you can't have 2 yahoo accounts open at the same time on the same computer because they use a cookie to tell which account is active. Maybe cell phone companies can only process one call per number at a time (a reasonable configuration) and hence with many towers it appears this rule is being violated. Apparently some military close-defense radar had the same problem, if 2 incoming were close enough in threat profile it couldn't choose which one to shoot at and picked neither. Presumably both cell phones and radar need a better algorithm to choose one.

 

[DougPaul]

When I was a kid, your monthly bill was higher if you had extensions, it was a way for the phone company to get more money from those willing to pay for convenience.

When you were a kid, the telephone instruments were rented. Now, you rent the line and supply your own instruments.

Doug

 

[Frosty]

It just shows your age When I was a kid, your monthly bill was higher if you had extensions, it was a way for the phone company to get more money from those willing to pay for convenience. The charge may go away someday with cell phones too.

I remember those days. The prefix of my first phone number was Wyman. (That's 99 for the younger folk.)

All it will take is for one plan to allow two phones to share a line, and then they all will. So far I have seen reasons why they don't permit it, but no technical reasons why they could not if they so chose.

The phone companies always seem to have to be forced into being reasonable by competition. A couple years ago I wanted a faster than a modem internet access. I checked into a DSL line for my computer, but they were going to charge me the normal fee and an extra $10 for each additional computer hooked up to the internet. I had three: mine, my wife's and my son's. They would not change from that, telling me some gibberish reason why. My cable company had no such restriction, and even helped me with with free instructins for a wireless network to connect as many computers as I wanted. The phone company has since changed its policy I understand, but it's too late for me: I'm not going to change now.

 

[jwind]

I hate 'cell phone' debates -- all of them. If it's not one thing it's another, they're everywhere, they're anoyying, the give you tumors... My favorite one is "the towers are ugly" Ya, well your right but hundreds of thousands of telephone poles (and wire) that line or streets and cut up the forest ain't all the purdy either.

BTW, do land lines really have a future anyway? Aside from business lines my folks landline is about the only one i call on a regular basis.

 

[DougPaul]

BTW, do land lines really have a future anyway? Aside from business lines my folks landline is about the only one i call on a regular basis.

Land lines will be here for quite a while. A friend just had his copper landline replaced with a fiber landline. (The phone company is doing the entire town and hopes to deliver internet and tv via fiber as well as phone audio.)

However, landlines are limited to out-and-back routes in the woods because you have to pick up the cable on the way back.

Doug

 

[jwind]

Land lines will be here for quite a while. A friend just had his copper landline replaced with a fiber landline. (The phone company is doing the entire town and hopes to deliver internet and tv via fiber as well as phone audio.)


Doug

Futile effort if you ask me. Phone companies are losing out BIG Time to Cell companies, and not to mention VOIP.

From a business standpoint, it's a heck of a lot easier to emit radio waves for cell reception the to tear up the ground from here to timbucktoo to lay wire. From a ecological standpoint the latter makes even less sense.

 

[dougb]

From a business standpoint, it's a heck of a lot easier to emit radio waves for cell reception the to tear up the ground from here to timbucktoo to lay wire. From a ecological standpoint the latter makes even less sense.

That's true, but the bandwidth gets used up pretty quickly. You can keep on adding copper or fiber lines, but you run out of radio spectrum - no matter how good you encrypt or multiplex, eventually it's used up.

 

[DougPaul]

That's true, but the bandwidth gets used up pretty quickly. You can keep on adding copper or fiber lines, but you run out of radio spectrum

Dougb is correct.

Doug
electrical engineer

 

[dougb]

Water vs. Electronics

Sort of back to the original thread...

I had an expensive weekend. Didn't bring a plastic bag. Slipped on a wet log and did a face plant in some nice, soft mud.

And by the end of the day, the cell phone was dead, the digital camera was too, and the GPS was acting really strange (off for 30 seconds, on for 30 seconds - but it seems all better now).

I navigate with a map and compass, but use the GPS to keep track and as a backup, and while we were never lost, it was a good reminder that the old ways may not be better - but they sure are more water resistant!

 

[DougPaul]

And by the end of the day, the cell phone was dead, the digital camera was too, and the GPS was acting really strange (off for 30 seconds, on for 30 seconds - but it seems all better now).

Most cell phones and digital cameras are not very water resistant, but some GPSes intended for outdoor use are built to a spec for water resistance (30min at 1 meter depth for Garmin).

Problems with a GPS due to water is rather disturbing. If the GPS was in a case, a wet case could be a significant factor.

Doug

 

[dougb]

Well, I admit I buy cheap cameras. I figure if I had an expensive one, I'd leave it home, so what's the point? So the lack of water resistance was no surprise. The GPS was a different story - it's a Garmin Forerunner, so it's supposed to be out in the weather as it wears like a wristwatch... but it did get impacted with mud. I'll just have to see how it behaves the next time.

 

[DougPaul]

Well, I admit I buy cheap cameras. I figure if I had an expensive one, I'd leave it home, so what's the point? So the lack of water resistance was no surprise. The GPS was a different story - it's a Garmin Forerunner, so it's supposed to be out in the weather as it wears like a wristwatch... but it did get impacted with mud. I'll just have to see how it behaves the next time.

Mud covering the antenna could potentially block the signal.

In general, the electronics compartment is waterproof, but the battery compartment may leak.

Also, the wrist is not the best place to carry a GPS. The antenna orientation, arm swing, and signal blocking by the body all can degrade performance. A wet sleeve covering the GPS could also block the signal.

Doug

 

[AntlerPeak]

It is interesting. The purpose of his post now with 78 replies was to ask a question. "What do you guys think of cell phones in the mountains?" Rather simple wasn't it? I see the question offended someone as I got zapped with a little red flag for raising the question. Of course this action raises another question, "how is it a question manages to offend one to the point where they red flag the one who asks?" The mere fact there has been so much interesting and thoughtful replies suggest the initial post was not that bad. Oh well soiled rep and all I will somehow muddle through.

 

[DougPaul]

It is interesting. The purpose of his post now with 78 replies was to ask a question. "What do you guys think of cell phones in the mountains?" Rather simple wasn't it? I see the question offended someone as I got zapped with a little red flag for raising the question. Of course this action raises another question, "how is it a question manages to offend one to the point where they red flag the one who asks?" The mere fact there has been so much interesting and thoughtful replies suggest the initial post was not that bad. Oh well soiled rep and all I will somehow muddle through.

The thread "snot funny" got 56 replies. By that measure, cell phones in the mountains are only 39% more interesting than snot rockets.

Doug