Again with the compass vs. GPS rivalry??? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The point you ignore is that we might as well invert this and say: "GPS only allows you to get TO a KNOWN position." GPS won't help you one whit to determine the distance between you and some mountains in the distance that you may or may not be able to identify, unless you remembered to pre-program a waypoint. (I know some GPS systems have basemaps, etc., but I'm talking about the essential satellite technology here).

GPS, when it works, tells you where you are very precisely. But it delivers this datum in the form of a rather abstract system of imaginary lines that we have plotted on the planet--latitude and longitude. The real problem (assuming you're lost) is, how do I get from here to where I want to be?

Did I remember to turn the unit on and click a waypoint for my car? Do I know how to convert 42.45464587 degrees into minutes and seconds so I can apply it to the tic marks on my map? Did I remember to bring my t-square? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I like GPS. It's what I use for navigation (and for fun) most of the time, as long as I have the time and ability to pre-program waypoints. But it's silly to frame this as an either/or choice between GPS and compass. Basic competence with map and compass will remain a valuable skill for any backcountry traveler--especially trip leaders.

You know what instrument will be less common? Altimeters. If you're carrying a GPS and can get a decent signal, the elevation data is usually pretty consistent, in my experience. So long as you brought a decent topo, that information can be quite a bit more relevant than your angle of repose towards Greenwich, England. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />