<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The "reliability" of a GPS track has less to do
with whether or not it was collected in the field, and more about how
accurate it is. It's certainly possible to produce an accurate,
field-worthy track by drawing it on a computer first</blockquote>
then Ken wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="2">The real question remains - How
accurate does the trail have to be traced to be of value? Don't be like
those people in Oregon blindly following their GPS. Use some common
sense out there.</font></blockquote>
My reply:<br>
<br>
By field-worthy, I mean reasonably accurate. Maps can be wrong, the
trail routing may change, and no solution is foolproof. Any hiker who
isn't okay with the level of navigational uncertainty a CDT hike
inevitably dishes out shouldn't be champing at the bit to use GPS in
the first place; the tool is best left to those who recognize its
limitations and secondary role as a navigation aid. <br>
<br>
The only alternate to hand drawing, ie mapping out a GPS track in
advance (to the best of one's ability given all the caveats) is, of
course, to actually walk the walk and collect the data yourself. But
this has yet to be done for the entire trail... it's largely
impractical due to all of the various route options... and is only of
help to those who come after you. The real value of a hand-drawn track
(collection of waypoints) is that it's actually usable in the field at
all!<br>
<br>
- blisterfree<br>
</body>
</html>