Registered: 05/26/08
Posts: 125
Loc: bc/yukon border area
thank you and absolutly forgiven you all have been very helpfull. thanks to all your help i can post pictures ,make paragraphs,and kind of use punctuation. i do not use a computer at work and obviously have had no training.
so what was he, biased . i'm a little more familiar with my bias-ply's or whatever they are. cheers lyall
azcanyon - I think I understand your post. Your post indicated that a gps could not tell me the distance to a distant peak, whether known or not. I should have been more detailed in my original post - I want to be able to know line of sight distance, not walking distance. I have been doing exactly that in trying to train my eyes and mind to learn distances. As a matter of fact I was on a ridge trail three weeks ago and came to a beautiful vista. I oriented my map with compass and, having hiked for a long time in the area, identified a distant peak. While the gps was locating sat's, I measured out the utm coords. When gps was ready to navigate I entered the utm coords that I had come up with for Big Fodderstack and then hit 'goto'. The gps told me that I was looking at a peak that was 3 point 2 something miles away. I studied this view for a while - commiting to memory as much detail as possible. Of course it would have been just as easy to do this without the gps and just measure to scale. But why not?
Registered: 05/26/08
Posts: 125
Loc: bc/yukon border area
to me when i am out distance and time are very closely related figure on 3 mph and add 1/2 hr for every 100 ft of elevation try to practice looking back when you can to see aprox how far you have travelled in 1 hr this can help you to recognize the aprox distance and time on similar terrain.
Registered: 05/26/08
Posts: 125
Loc: bc/yukon border area
well paddy-crow i have been home sick today probally just annoying everyone and that last post actually made me laugh out loud most excellent thank you
I will admit to be in exactly the same boat as paddy about it <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
There's always a roll of lime green and blaze orange flag tape in my hunting pack for exactly the situation you describe, and I don't follow a blood trail without. You have a light, you should be able to find the flags.
However you're spot on that the situation you describe is a perfectly good use for a GPS unit. Nothing at all wrong with that..
I tried to look through the tread to see if anyone had mentioned the eye-blinking method, but I did not find it. If it is already mentioned, bear over with me.
The method uses the fact that the distance between the eyes of people is usually 1/10 of the distance of the arm up to the thumb. First you need to spot something that you know the height of at the target. If there is a building, count the number of floors, then you know the height aprox. If there are trees, you know the height usually in that district. For longer distances you must know the height of mountains, just look at the map. (f.ex an island on a lake, find the difference from the water level)
Then you do this: With one eye closed and arm stretced out, raise the thumb up (no not the middle finger <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) and use one eye, then the other. If you keep your hand steady, the finger will point to a different place from one eye to the other. If you know that a tree is say 60 feet high, and the finger "moved" a treelength to the side then the distance there is 600 feet. For greater accuracy use a pointed object, pencil, knife, straw.
I was with some people once and one asked the distance to a house. Several guesses came up. I used my eyeblink-method and said 400 yards. One decided to check by walking and counting steps. He came back a litle later, rather baffled and said it was 405 yards. He had counted his steps both ways. I had luck on that one <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Cheers back at you. And FWIW, I share your opinion about the usefulness and convenience of GPS vs other methods of navigation/orientation. I just don't want to get rid of the other methods!
azcanyon - I think I understand your post. Your post indicated that a gps could not tell me the distance to a distant peak, whether known or not. I should have been more detailed in my original post - I want to be able to know line of sight distance, not walking distance. I have been doing exactly that in trying to train my eyes and mind to learn distances. As a matter of fact I was on a ridge trail three weeks ago and came to a beautiful vista. I oriented my map with compass and, having hiked for a long time in the area, identified a distant peak. While the gps was locating sat's, I measured out the utm coords. When gps was ready to navigate I entered the utm coords that I had come up with for Big Fodderstack and then hit 'goto'. The gps told me that I was looking at a peak that was 3 point 2 something miles away. I studied this view for a while - commiting to memory as much detail as possible. Of course it would have been just as easy to do this without the gps and just measure to scale. But why not?
Absolutely why not. In fact, the GPS can provide a level of feedback, of detailed confirmation, that you'd never be able to get without it. Your posts here indicate (in my humble opinion, anyway) that you're on the right track. The trick is in being able to connect your real world observations with "map information." And when I say map information, I'm including GPS data, whether in the form of lat/long, waypoints, or programmed basemap.
There's no real shortcut to learning to do what you're learning to do, which is compare the information in your maps (in whatever form) to the things you see and are trying to walk upon.
It all gets rather philosophical and complex, I know. But the "training" you described about comparing your topo to what you're seeing in front of you is the right way to go.
I think that's a really good idea, judging distance using the standard issue Mark I eyeball. By estimating first, and then checking with a map and/or some other means, I think you could get very good at judging distance to objects over time, even with standard issue computer hardware. Mine is actually in exceptional shape. Hardly been used. lol
It is similar to testing your judgement in other areas before confirming with instruments. Time of day. Time and/or distance since you last checked. Air temperature is another good one. Besides training your senses and judgement this might also be a good way to check to see if you are starting to lose it for one reason or another. I don't use a GPS where I hike. If I went someplace else I might carry one as backup. I don't think I will ever use one as my primary means of navigating. I think it would just make the brain go soft. Keeping my brain active performing more natural functions by processing natural information in a natural setting is one of the main reasons I go hiking in the great outdoors. GPS ain't natural. Map and compass and watch and dead reckoning aren't completely natural either, but they are close enough. We don't want to stop thinking in terms of, well just in terms of whether it feels right, and where we might get to by sunset, and what the weather is doing, and how many extra days travel we might have if it snows hard tonight. I think a GPS can take away more information than it provides if you're not careful.
I would definitely carry a GPS in situations I needed it. I make it a point not to I guess. I do use alot of other instruments, like a watch and compass and a thermometer, and even a heart rate monitor, both for more accuracy and as fun learning tools, but for some reason not a GPS. I draw the line there. If I did as much as possible I would only use it for confirmation, to train the brain, but a good crutch can leave you a cripple. Where I hike and for what I do I don't need one. I often bushwack, and almost always make a point of getting lost when I do, but always within a well contained play area. This keeps my brain, well, less dull. I don't use flagging tape either, but I sometimes follow others. If I was out there performing some specific task like hunting it would be different, and then I would use GPS for sure, but I am really only out there to mess around. With a GPS I would have to go farther and deeper for it to be as much fun, and I am not sure it would be.
I've often thought if I ever sailed the world I might do it without too much information or too much instrumentation, to rediscover the world for myself, the old ways. I'm convinced it can be done just as safely. It just takes longer. I wouldn't get as far, but whatever I discovered I could call my own. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
II've often thought if I ever sailed the world I might do it without too much information or too much instrumentation, to rediscover the world for myself, the old ways. I'm convinced it can be done just as safely. It just takes longer. I wouldn't get as far, but whatever I discovered I could call my own. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Have you read about the South Pacific islanders who navigate by their butt? They feel the timing and sequencing of the waves that are constant throughout their area. They used to use this method to help travel hundreds of miles on open sea. Some have kept this lore alive and can still use it. Amazing . . .
_________________________
Human Resources Memo: Floggings will continue until morale improves.
II've often thought if I ever sailed the world I might do it without too much information or too much instrumentation, to rediscover the world for myself, the old ways. I'm convinced it can be done just as safely. It just takes longer. I wouldn't get as far, but whatever I discovered I could call my own. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Have you read about the South Pacific islanders who navigate by their butt? They feel the timing and sequencing of the waves that are constant throughout their area. They used to use this method to help travel hundreds of miles on open sea. Some have kept this lore alive and can still use it. Amazing . . .
That is pretty amazing. I know from sailing small boats, and bigger boats also, you get alot of information from the seat of your pants. Kinesthetic sense is wicked important for sailing, mostly for good boatspeed and good boathandling, but its fascinating that it can be for navigation also. I think kinesthetics is a combination of the entire body dynamics, plus the inner ear. Besides hearing and kinesthetics the ear is also what gives you wind speed and direction, and changes in wind speed and direction. If you cover your ears sailing, or paddling for that matter, its like sailing in the dark. Of course sometimes you have to, especially for paddling, because if you let your head and ears get cold you can lose your sense of balance big time, and judgement. Hats with earflaps are good so you can flap up and flap down. Even when hiking in a cold wind I flap up now and then or take my hat off when I can, probably just out of habit more than anything, to get a better sense of what the wind it doing. That's what thousands of hours of sailing will do to you I guess. I get hit by a wind shift and have to keep myself from tacking or gybing. lol
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!