A Phone Isn't A Map

gonebad395 said:
Um this^^^^
Also to say that mankind doesn't benefit from technology is crazy man. I agree that it is a good idea to know how to read a map. But come on man you can't really say this stuff with a straight face can you?
Click to expand...

This was not the argument. Your need to misrepresent what I said suggests the problem is on your end. To recap the thread:
- I simply posted a story suggesting how phones are a poor substitute for maps.
- Several people jumped in with their opinions about how great phones are, clearly having not read the story, nor understanding the thread.
- I then clarified the problems, or shortcomings, of phones realtive to map and compass, without ever saying anything about how phones are inherently wrong.
- Then more repetition about how phones are essential equipment.
- Another poster jumps in and repeats the line that it is the individuals fault.
- I responded how it cannot be all pinned on individuals as technology can change how people see the world and relate to their environment.
- Another poster claimed that phones are the best possible item across skills.
- I responded that this is an absurd view, which it clearly is to anyone with a basic understanding of the woods and how reliable tools are generally best.
- I was then made fun of, misrepresented, called an idiot and a luddite.

And that's where we stand now. If anyone is at fault it is the group of you who fail to read and simply act like pathetic teenagers having to resort to ridicule and tactics of isolation. If you find that a serious discussion of technology makes it come across as negative then perhaps there really is a problem, and/or there is a problem with your own worldview that you have to resort to personal attacks and maligning behaviour. What if it's your refusal to think critically and logically, and the need to bring others down to your level that is the problem?

There is a very important difference between saying 'there is no benefit from technology' and 'technology becomes more fragile as it increases.' This should be abundantly clear to anyone who pays attention to what goes on in the world.

To get back on track, the issue with phones is not simply that they can run out of batteries, but in real wilderness locations they can lose signal, and there are issues with reliability and screen size which I outlined. This would be clear to anyone who read the article/thread and considered the points made rather than going into defense mode. It is not simply about maps being better than phones, nor about personal responsibility, but that phones can leave you without a sense of direction due to their inherent makeup. That's not anti-technology, it's just the way it is.
 
Last edited:
Finally upgraded my phone last year to a smart phone. Actually enjoying a lot of the things it can do. My favorite outdoor use for it - the camera. It actually does a better job than the dedicated digital camera I have. Plus no need to hook up some cables to download the pics, I can just post them online from the phone, or send them to my home computer. So now I no longer have to pack a camera along. I like all the gear I pack along on trips to have multiple functions - it does that in spades. Never tried using it in place of a map, hell I've never even messed around with GPS. Just learned with a map & compass and always felt more comfortable with that. Maybe one day I'll see how it works in that capacity, but I'd never solely rely on it. It's just another tool in the toolbox.
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
Nice passive aggressive way to end it. Either face up to the fact you lost the argument, like a man, or simply walk away. No need to be so sour.
Click to expand...

You're the one climbing up on your cross because many of us disagree with your basic assessment. Not all technology is good, but plenty of it is and, for many of us, a smartphone has simply become a necessity. Like it or not, that particular invention is much like the automobile. It has revolutionized the way we do things in a way very, very few things do. The issues you bring up with it are, for many of us, simply minor inconveniences that will rarely, if ever, have any effect on us while the power and versatility of the tool in question can completely transform how we do things. I own a small business and the smartphone plays a giant part in everything from employee payroll to inventory to advertising. Someone is always there to rail against new technology, hell people thought our organs couldn't take the stress of travel over 25mph when train travel became common. You're playing a role that has existed since time immemorial, it's just that, more often than not, it ends up being wrong.
 
No, you're focusing on this fiction you have created over what I wrote so as to debase it since you believe that the smartphone is the most important tool there is. We're discussing bushcraft, survival, and woods living. That's not a business. What does a phone do for you in terms of clothing, shelter, making fire, cutting wood, traveling, etc? Nothing. It is a backup device for emergency calls if in an area with signal and a backup map, nothing more. And the application and cultish attitude towards the phone has made it dangerous for some.

You are just upset because I told it like it is. All too common a reaction this day and age. You want to play Angry Birds in the woods? Go ahead, I have no intention of stopping you. But don't try to tell me that the tool is essential or the number one tool.
 
Last edited:
A lot of the places I go have bad cell phone reception, so for me cell phones aren't quite as useful as I would like them to be.

That said, I pretty much never go anywhere (camping or otherwise) without my phone, so it's never an "either or" situation. It more a question of what else I might bring in addition to my phone.
 
I'm gonna lay out a side bet here that if you hand a map to those 44 people mentioned in the linked article it wouldn't have made one bit of difference.
 
Street maps are not around any more. I see Road Atlases in the local stores, but no-one carries a 5 County street map any longer. I don't care if it is not 100% accurate, because I can plot the route out and get a general idea of the area from the paper map. :(
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
Nice passive aggressive way to end it. Either face up to the fact you lost the argument, like a man, or simply walk away. No need to be so sour.
Click to expand...

Lmao you are delusional man are you storing arsenic in the heel of your boot just in case. I disagree with 95% of what you say and you disagree with 100% of what I say. So manned up and left a conversation that was as repetitive and utterly mind numbing as watching tennis. You won't change my views and I won't change yours so no more need to speak in the subject.
 
gonebad395 said:
Lmao you are delusional man are you storing arsenic in the heel of your boot just in case. I disagree with 95% of what you say and you disagree with 100% of what I say. So manned up and left a conversation that was as repetitive and utterly mind numbing as watching tennis. You won't change my views and I won't change yours so no more need to speak in the subject.
Click to expand...

If that were the case then you would have simply stated 'let's agree to disagree' and left out the 'shaking my head' comment. Good try though. You lost the argument, so let people get back to the discussion, please.
 
Danke42 said:
I'm gonna lay out a side bet here that if you hand a map to those 44 people mentioned in the linked article it wouldn't have made one bit of difference.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but this is getting away from the point. One of the other articles posted had a quote from the rescued individuals saying that they would never have attempted the hike without access to the technology, so for some the sense of safety and constant connection to the world gives a false sense of security. How many people will abandon common sense in the wilderness, or go farther off-trail than their experience should dictate simply because 'I have my phone and can call for help'? Apparently quite a few based on these stories getting into the media.

Again, it's not that you are making a poor choice if you like to take a phone with you, nor that you are a less-skilled bushcrafter for doing so, only that there is something inherent in the idea of this technology which can make people feel more skilled than they are, or gives them a false sense of security. And the new technology simply isn't as good as the old. This puts search and rescue personnel at risk, along with all of us, so it is a mistake to turn it into a simplistic 'I like phones, you are a luddite' dichotomy. There are lessons we can learn by thinking through these things.
 
a phone in the right hands (say my mine for example) is a powerful tool when loaded with the right software (say GaiaGPS) it gives me access to the entire Bob Marshall complex in 24k:1 detail. Contrary to what many think you do NOT need a cell signal to use the gps feature, in fact I keep my phone in airplane mode (which makes it impossible to receive cell service) to insure the phone isn't searching for a signal which draws juice from the battery. It also happens to take incredible pictures, so it lets me leave my camera AND gps home, saving me weight. After 74 hours and 113 miles I still had 62% battery life on my iphone6, not too bad

It doesn't replace a paper map & compass, but supplements them- no different than a standalone gps.

out of the eleven people that finished the Bob Marshall Open, six used their phones to help with navigation, the other five brought gps's- my guess next year there will be a few less gps's and a few more phones

everyone carried a SPOT or Delorme Inreach, another piece of technology that I'm sure some will think has no business in the backcountry
 
I happen to prefer Android, but I agree.

I think there is a bit of a 'frame problem” going on. I really don't think it is helpful to call them phones.

At the heart of it my Android is a general purpose computational device running on a Linux Kernel. One of the functions it can perform is to make phone calls. Rather than examining these devices under the rubric of traditional telephones I suspect it would be more prudent to examine them as computers. GIGO. The questions are then: In principle, is it ever possible for such a computational device to afford advantages over good old map and compass? If no, why not? If yes, is that now, or is it just in principle in future? And what would it take to resolve that difference [if any]? Better battery? More powerful computer? Better software? What? Does it need to be a subdermal implant powered by body movement? Could we make do with a device that reliably indicated direction by tapping the earth's magnetic fields and also made phone calls?
 
I agree with the numerous observations that map and compass are important. Heck, I was taught "navigation by observation" - finding your way with a map but without a compass. The compass was for backup.

I guess that if you have any gear, you can be in a mindset that the gear will solve X problem and not think about what happens if the gear does not work as expected. GPS can fail. English Long Bows can fail. Boots can fail. Food packaging can fail. Compasses can fail. Martini-Henry rifles can fail. Maps can fail - inaccurate due to changes over time. ("How could we miss that trail turn-off?" The map had not been updated in nineteen years, and the path became overgrown.)

The remedy, I think, is a course in Murphy's Law and reminder that Murphy was an optimist. If we force ourselves to think of alternatives, we are better off. It is the human condition that traps us, not the gear.
 
The really cool thing about cell phones is that most of us carry it anyways so it's not additional gear or weight.

It's not a necessity and it shouldn't necessarily take the place of potentially more vital gear... but for most of us it's always there anyways so it's a very very attractive option for almost anyone.
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
Perhaps, but this is getting away from the point. One of the other articles posted had a quote from the rescued individuals saying that they would never have attempted the hike without access to the technology, so for some the sense of safety and constant connection to the world gives a false sense of security. How many people will abandon common sense in the wilderness, or go farther off-trail than their experience should dictate simply because 'I have my phone and can call for help'? Apparently quite a few based on these stories getting into the media.

Again, it's not that you are making a poor choice if you like to take a phone with you, nor that you are a less-skilled bushcrafter for doing so, only that there is something inherent in the idea of this technology which can make people feel more skilled than they are, or gives them a false sense of security. And the new technology simply isn't as good as the old. This puts search and rescue personnel at risk, along with all of us, so it is a mistake to turn it into a simplistic 'I like phones, you are a luddite' dichotomy. There are lessons we can learn by thinking through these things.
Click to expand...

What is the point? Those people got lost in a recreation area in the UK. A dinky little overpopulated country. You can drive the length of it in a day.

Reading into edited quotes in a newspaper article is risky business. Reading the incident reports it sounds like the place is a rats nest of unmarked and confusing trails. What good a map is going to do the average rambler is very debatable.

Sound like SPOT phones are the best tool to encourage use of. Then organize some work parties to deactivate the trails to nowhere and properly mark the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top