Bushwalk Australia

Hi to all GPS gear freaks.

Here is an article that suggests sub one metre GPSs are not too far off. Also indicates that the technology in hyper expensive commercial units might transition bit more quicker to domestic units. The key limitation appears to be the aerial, something that weight and space conscious walkers will be looking at.

http://www.gpsworld.com/survey/whats-go ... heap-10024

Cheers

And a good article on the games manufacturers play re accuracy claims.

http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm

Cheers

Interesting that the artical mentions nothing about correction services, wether thats a base station, network solution or subscription correction like OMnistar. With out that i dont see how you can get reliable submeter accuracy from GPS regardless of L5 signal. Even now with L1/L2 receivers if you dont have a base station you cant get sub metre accuracy. And if you need a corrections service well then you need either a radio comms, 3g phone signal, or a satellite correction service. But all this is irrevleant for this website becuase there is no way that a bushwalker needs sub metre accuracy GPS.

Never ceases to amaze me when people stop looking for improvements on the grounds stuff is "good" enough and make assumptions.

Would it not be good that volunteers could help Parks out mapping their infrastructure?

I suppose irrelevant is a relative term.

Cheers

Ent wrote:Never ceases to amaze me when people stop looking for improvements on the grounds stuff is "good" enough and make assumptions.

Never ceases to amaze me when people Comment removed by admin. One needs to be realistic, you seem to expect every mapping and GPS company to provide a product that suits your needs completely, regardless of costs/profitabilty.

Ent wrote:Would it not be good that volunteers could help Parks out mapping their infrastructure?

Comment removed by admin. has this got to do with the OP, and IMO no i dont think it would be good, where is the QA.Comment removed by admin.

Ent wrote:I suppose irrelevant is a relative term.

I suppose being a Comment removed by admin.
Cheers

As an accountant I am familiar with large scale of geographically dispersed assets and know that information is key to efficient management of them. Else how can you say what is needed to maintain them if you do not know where they are and the condition of the assets? As for using volunteers, it is remarkable the number of studies in nature that have utilised volunteers to collect data. More than a few weather stations are reliant on members of the public to maintain them. An appropriately trained and suitably encouraged volunteer "workforce" can do wonders. When councils first adopted asset management the best and often only source of information was the general public when a road was sealed and bridges built. Digging through archival records suggests that the general public does a pretty good job.

The purpose of the thread was two fold. To highlight that GPS accuracy is set to improve dramatically and secondly it appears even with the current system of satellites greater accuracy is constrained by "commercial" reasons. This means likely that the commercial reasons will see the mass market for their future so we might see noticeably better units are lower prices. An additional point is the aerial is a key component and not one that technology can easily resolve as size does matter.

The purpose was never to suggest that we need sub one metre GPS for bushwalking. In fact the second article points out that accuracy claims are based on near perfect conditions. I am looking at my GPS plots on Basecamp and can see how the devices perform. It is noticeable the the iPhone running MemoryMap crosses back and forth across the Mersey while the Asus tablet and Garmin 62s hold on the correct side of the river. What interests me as a bushwalker is the ability of technology to hold reasonable accuracy in adverse conditions. People are waking up that it is not accuracy per-say but reception that is the key to a great GPS for bushwalking back by good maps.

It should be obvious that we have been walking the tracks without GPS plots in order to create them so hence the caveat that traditional skills are still king.

Cheers

PS also we might see do it yourself surveying as we are seeing this with conveyancing no longer being the sole domain of lawyers. This will be interesting especially where the general public can then readily find errors in professional work. When at a council a land holder found that he was been charged rates on two parcel of land and when playing with his GPS in his tractor found one was inside the other

Hi Ent,

I read in another thread Tastrax invite you to supply your tracks and beta to PWS and he also said he would make representations to Tasmap on the issue. I think that's a pretty good outcome for someone such as yourself. However you cannot possibly expect a professional mapping organisation such as Tasmap to receive Joe Public's beta without then doing follow up checks and deciding whether this information is indeed relevant to be included on the next mapset. Do you think they have the funding for this? How often do you want the mapset updated?

Or do you propose that the public can indeed edit online versions of the maps?
This is precisely why OSM exists for people such as yourself, if you feel you can do a better job, knock yourself out and improve OSM in Tasmania.

I use topographic maps for the most part to gain an understanding of the contours of the land and certainly not to find tracks/huts etc. When walking off track I regularly find 'tracks' marked on my device that do not exist in reality or are offset by some hundreds of metres. While this can be annoying when confronted with walls of scrub I rationalise this quite simply by understanding I should not not be there if I don't have the ability or skills to extract myself.

This leads to the point I put to you. If you had maps that were 100% accurate(at the time they were produced) would this not encourage people with limited navigation skills to head into areas that as soon as weather conditions deteriorate or if their happened to be a mistake on the maps prove extremely dangerous? Do you really want all these tracks marked on maps so more people will use them, use the huts, degrade the environment and undoubtedly get themselves into trouble? Inded I saw you make the point in a rant on the Tasmap forum that lives were being put at risk by not having these features marked on maps, I see it as you may have guessed, quite the opposite.

There is a more than adequate word of mouth and online forum resources in Tasmania to gain information on where that little hut is, or that unofficial route is(I believe I even provided a gpx file for your Olympus trip), why do you want all of this information put in the public domain? Haven't I also read whining from you about the increased numbers in the bush?

I think I see what you mean, SBS. I reckon the same argument can apply to GPS in general and to PLB/EPIRB too.

Ent wrote:PS also we might see do it yourself surveying as we are seeing this with conveyancing no longer being the sole domain of lawyers. This will be interesting especially where the general public can then readily find errors in professional work. When at a council a land holder found that he was been charged rates on two parcel of land and when playing with his GPS in his tractor found one was inside the other

I can complete my tax return using the ATO software, that doesn’t mean anyone with a computer and an internet connection can fill the role of an accountant. I would have to be extremely ignorant and arrogant to suggest otherwise.
Your statement really highlights your true lacking of knowledge on the subject. I often wonder whether you truly believe what you write or perhaps your just having a big joke and troll the forum for enjoyment

Interesting topic , as a bit of a Luddite when it comes to GPS (own an etrex Venture HC but just not to happy with how to use it ) however I am comfortable with Map and Compass the Sun and Stars and have been for the past 50+ years however I would like to have more accurate "Paper" Maps and not just for indication of terrain but as a clue to roads and tracks so I believe that input from volunteers could well assist the "Experts" for their updates by reducing initial actual on the ground research.

I am also a firm believer that the "great outdoors" should be available to all and suspect none of us were very experienced in our early days but most of us survived somehow

corvus

corvus wrote:I am also a firm believer that the "great outdoors" should be available to all and suspect none of us were very experienced in our early days but most of us survived somehow

Nothing personal, but it really gets up my nose when people say this. IT IS! People say it as though someone's standing at the gate doing a Monty Python Black Knight: "None shall pass!". Nothing is stopping anyone from getting off their fat backsides and going out. Nothing, that is, except themselves; laziness, fear, ignorance, whatever. And they expect 'someone' to make it easy for them. To build nice straight sealed roads into the heart of the wildest places, with a nice well-stocked pub when they get there, and lovely soft comfy beds, and monstrous TVs for they get bored with all that 'nature'. Without a thought that all these amenities as stuffing up the very thing they're supposedly going out there to experience.

End of rant. For now. *walks off muttering to self*

Missing my point in that I do not believe we should hide access to areas in case more people go there !!
corvus

corvus wrote:Missing my point in that I do not believe we should hide access to areas in case more people go there !!
corvus

Who's hiding access Corvus?

Those who do not want Tracks and or Huts marked on Maps but I suppose I am generalizing in my comments
corvus

corvus wrote:Those who do not want Tracks and or Huts marked on Maps but I suppose I am generalizing in my comments
corvus

Not to mention massively exaggerating

From whence "massive exaggeration" please elucidate
corvus

Ha, with only a single bar I'ts good I chose to open this topic. Nobody needs such accuracy, perhaps gps freaks of course (those ent addresses).

Ive seen written here that safety is an issue if anything is left off a map. I tend to think its neither here nor there especially with remote / small or delapidated huts and indistinct tracks. In an ideal world Parks/tas map determine which these are with funding likely a key decision factor. I'm not arguing that an accountant wouldn't do a better job, who would know. Nobody in .gov.tas is ever accountable.. Are they

north-north-west wrote:Nothing personal, but it really gets up my nose when people say this. IT IS! People say it as though someone's standing at the gate doing a Monty Python Black Knight: "None shall pass!". Nothing is stopping anyone from getting off their fat backsides and going out. Nothing, that is, except themselves; laziness, fear, ignorance, whatever. And they expect 'someone' to make it easy for them. To build nice straight sealed roads into the heart of the wildest places, with a nice well-stocked pub when they get there, and lovely soft comfy beds, and monstrous TVs for they get bored with all that 'nature'. Without a thought that all these amenities as stuffing up the very thing they're supposedly going out there to experience.

+1

Read some history - its fun! People were going there before maps and GPS and rescue helicopters existed. Nothing stopped them then, and nothing stops anyone now. It is easier now than it ever was. Building footpaths and roads and resorts or erecting signs and shelters to make it less remote and less wild does not make wilderness more accessible. ....it just destroys one more bit of wilderness.

In fairness, I should add that not everyone of these early explorer's went out there simply to enjoy the wilderness. I recently read a report written by the District Surveyor, Sprent, in 1876. Besides being a prospector, it appears he was a pyromaniac.

"I left Table Cape on February 1st, and proceeded to Mount Bischoff by the Table Cape track, arriving in Waratah on February 2nd. On the 4th I went out to Ramsay River, ...on the 9th we commenced cutting a track... by the 29th the track was cut from Ramsay River to the top of Meredith Range...

On March 10th we set fire to the open country and succeeding in getting a very good burn. On Monday 13th...we came close to the river; then cutting through about twenty chains of bauera, tea-tree and horizontal scrub we pitched our tent on the north bank of the Pieman... ...Our provisions were exhausted the day after we reached the Pieman, so on the 14th we started back again. The day being warn and windy, we set the button grass on fire and made a line of four miles long.

Returned to the Pieman on the 12th (April)... On the 14th we reached Mount Heemskirk and went up... ...Camped near the foot of Mount Heemskirk intending to go in the direction of Mount Dundas. During the day observed that Lemprier and Jones had fired the country west of the Parson's Hood and the fire was travelling rapidly.

...On the morning of the 15th found that the barometer was falling fast and the wind coming in strong gusts ... Fearing a flood I determined to go back to the Pieman, and pushed on ... Set fire to the country as we went along.

...Messrs Lempriere and Jones, after separating from my party, proceeded to examine country in a westerly direction... ...ascending the peak to the west of Parson's Hood... ...The button grass was fired and a great extent of country cleared, but rain prevented the fires extending as far as they might have.... "

I bet the boys will be thinking of doing the same thing half-way through the PoW.

It is one of life small mysteries to me that when technology seeks to improve there is such emotional backlash against this. I remember being rather anti UL and used the "safety" argument myself but really that is bunkum if the user of the approach is careful and considered in what they do. As long as people chose the areas that suit their ability then banging on about GPS, PLB, etc, etc, etc being bad is utter, utter, rubbish. It is like saying that we should ban ABS brakes, stability control, seat bells, and air bags because they make people feel safer so drive dangerously As for the search and rescue issue, well it was so nice to see the rescue chopper making a direct bee-line to an injured walker using the GPS co-ordinates from my GPS. Oh my gosh maybe we should have not given them such precise location and let them fly around conducting grid searches, like the use to do, and still do when they have no precise location

As mentioned a lot of the data I have been collecting has being by walking the area, and to-date, I and the people that I walk with have not troubled the rescue authorities. I am frequently impressed by the logic and common sense applied by the "ancients" that established many of the tracks and suggested routes and would like to see such information preserved in maps. The likes of Paddy Hartnett and Basil Steers had the on ground experience and terrain-sense that I can only dream of. But I like many other people am rather time poor so look for shorts cuts to get this information. One of the shorts cuts is maps, track notes, and even GPSs.

For the record Tasmap accept input from the general public And they validate it It this not plain and simple risk management What is the problem with this Volunteers have been the backbone for the push for National Parks an improving infrastructure. Should we have asked Mr Gustav Weindorfer for his PhD before accepting that the Cradle area should be protected? A sizable number of Search & Rescue, Ambulance, and Fire Services in regional areas are volunteers so I consider QA concerns rather dismissive of volunteer talents and drive.

I have been looking at Tasmaps for a long time and have scratched my head in the past on some of their data but using triangulation to find a position you have a reasonable error of uncertainty so hard to validate if the map is wrong or I am wrong in my readings. I was somewhat surprised to find maps revised as late as last year had such significant errors and lack of updates. We have established that Parks has been mapping tracks and assets since 2008 and sharing this data with Tasmap. Maybe the same feeling expressed earlier that Parks are not "experts" in GIS is being applied by Tasmap and such data is being ignored. I have learnt never under estimate the arrogance of "experts". But I am pushing to find out why re-route tracks are not on the current maps. It may be the ever present issue of lack of resources rather than anything sinister.

Please do not get me wrong. Expertise is a critical factor in improving humanity, and I for one would take the advice of a recognised specialist over a GP, and a GP over some pseudo witch doctor, but still more than happy to check out the material on the internet plus consider what other people's experiences is. A leading expert in diabetes was prone to say, outside the ear shot of some, that the best person to manage a patient's diabetes is the patient themselves as they can "feel" what works and what does not work and his role was to improve their understanding. Also, the worse place for a diabetic was a hospital full of "experts". Strange but true I as told the same thing by the surgeon that I went to re a problem that might have required major surgery.

What is driving me is the downright abysmal quality of many commercial mapping products. For the record, Contours Australia 5M is satellite radar mapped data that with some digging will probably reveals that is the bases behind more than a few commercial maps. As mentioned I would be suspicious of such data as the neat even spacing of contour lines suggests a fair bit of interpolation. Simple check is look at you GPS mapping software and see if contour lines touch. If you are using Garmin Topo Maps then this does not happen. A simple walk to Mount Rianna revealed this "characteristic" to me with all sides of the mountain looking roughly the same on the commercial maps but rather different in real life. Tasmap was a much better indicator of the terrain.

If anything what I am writing confirms that people need to be careful and understand that Tasmaps are not always correct, commercial GPS maps can be suspect, and there is no substitute for on ground terrain sense. I have a strong belief that a map should be as good as it can be given the resources available to the mapping authority and censorship is a bad thing as it reflects more the prejudiced of the ruling elite than anything else.

I am left shaking my head that a simple thread on improving GPS accuracy can raise such a tide of emotion. The thread was merely pointing out that technology is on the march again after a period of stagnation. It was never intended to over-throw the world order that obviously some believe that I should hold.

Cheers

Son of a Beach wrote:Off topic, personal and moderation based comments removed. Please keep it all on topic and within rules, guys.

Oops! Sprent's little story was interest though, even if OT.

@Ent. Highly accurate, affordable GPS will be important in the future for all sorts of reasons. e.g. Urban Transport. I'm just not yet convinced that it will add one wit of advantage to the average bushwalker. I actually think that making more information available might be a good thing and freeing up some of the information stored away in Government archives is desirable. Other aspects of technology might help by providing more information that might be used to make more informed decisions. Still without the wisdom of Solomon or the ability to see the future who can say what is best?

I think I'm not the only one who fears the possible loss and destruction that would follow increased access to wilderness. ....but that's another off-topic discussion and one that probably has no end.

I do not understand why you need to keep bashing us over the head in multiple threads about your new found obsession with maps and GPS.

Whilst the ability to supply an accurate fix to rescue authorities is indeed a useful thing, and a more accurate GPS helps in this regard, the technology does not allow this all the time. You will never have 100% accurate maps. Terrain changes, You only need a bushfire to sweep through or a landslip to occur to alter or obliterate previously well known landmarks and topography respectively.

So please, give it a rest. We get it. You want pinpoint accuracy GPS and maps accurate to the minute.

The rest of us can cope with a degree of inaccuracy and uncertainty even if you cannot.

Ent, I think you should just be happy that we have one of the western worlds last great wilderness areas in our state. As wT mentioned that the more information that is put on a map about these areas the wilderness experience diminishes and besides it is impossible to put every bit of information on a map. If you have run out of tracks to walk on then I suggest you take up off track walking. Personally I would love Ordinance Survey quality of map in Tasmania but our state just doesn't have the same funds as the British government so I think what we have is quite adequate. As for the map on your GPS, surely you take a paper map too when walking in case of electronic failure?
Try educating yourself on the history and truth behind maps, the different agendas of the map makers are quite interesting. You may even enjoy it more than whingeing on here about your mapping on your GPS being slightly inaccurate

Hey guys, I don't object to Ent passionately pursuing his interest here, and I don't think anyone should object (you aren't forced to read it). Each to their own. I'm just not a convert to highly accurate gps - yet!

walkinTas wrote:Hey guys, I don't object to Ent passionately pursuing his interest here, and I don't think anyone should object (you aren't forced to read it). Each to their own. I'm just not a convert to highly accurate gps - yet!

I think part of the problem is when Ent is directly asked questions he ignores them which is highly disrespectful. He's happy to criticise all and sundry but unwilling to entertain other aspects of the same issue, it's like someone having a public conversation with themselves! Maybe he will receive a more willing audience on a GPS forum?

A lot of people are extremely miffed he derailed so many threads when he did his mass deletion a while back without explanation or qualification, again highly disrespectful to all forum users, it's probably a matter of time before another 1000 posts disappear when he next spits the dummy.

There is no wonder people get pissed off with his 'contributions'.

doogs wrote:Ent, I think you should just be happy that we have one of the western worlds last great wilderness areas in our state. As wT mentioned that the more information that is put on a map about these areas the wilderness experience diminishes and besides it is impossible to put every bit of information on a map. If you have run out of tracks to walk on then I suggest you take up off track walking. Personally I would love Ordinance Survey quality of map in Tasmania but our state just doesn't have the same funds as the British government so I think what we have is quite adequate. As for the map on your GPS, surely you take a paper map too when walking in case of electronic failure?
Try educating yourself on the history and truth behind maps, the different agendas of the map makers are quite interesting. You may even enjoy it more than whingeing on here about your mapping on your GPS being slightly inaccurate

Hi Doogs

I have when being mapping rather interested in the names used and noticed that some areas have a flavour to the names and this intrigues me. Bit or research reveals the original European visitors to the area and their backgrounds plus interests. One of the famous caves in Tassie is name after a famous poem. This is a good approach to memory by placing a narrative to a path. Sadly much of the narrative of the first Australians is lost to us in Tassie and I sincerely hope that efforts are been made to preserve this knowledge in other places before it disappears under the weight of conformity.

As for off track. Well I do but never think to make much of a fuss about it. In fact, the forum rules advise sensitivity when discussing the areas traversed that are not tracked. One of the interesting things to me is winter walking where the tracks are obscured by snow. It is good to have "rat runs" or "escape" routes to avoid upsetting the folks back home by being late. So far every walk has ended within a sensible time span. To me having such contingencies is common-sense. Having been trapped on the wrong side of raging mass of water that the day before you could tip-toe across has made me more aware that having plan B through to Z is a good idea.

As for the whinging, a word rather laced with emotion, all I seek is the best maps possible at the most reasonable price. Behind the scenes there has been a strong push for Tasmap to modernise its electronic maps and pricing. This is to happen, now was it because of this pressure or just natural evolution of technology that is for others in the know to answer.

It is rather hard to write to an audience that has often fixed minds. I admire the dogged approach of more than a few on this forum that have stuck to their beliefs and as a result I have changed my opinion on a few matters. It is much easier to attack a person than argue an alternative approach. Some may have noticed the efforts behind examining the GPS and mapping issues while other appear just to see the person. Words like "whinging, pissed off, disrespect", etc show up and ironically that is what the replies themselves can be deemed.

If we look at the first two posts. The first provides a link to an article on the next generation of GPSs along with the constraint that aerial design places on many devices. The second highlights that theoretical precision versus achievable versus what you actually get means that sub one metre translates into much wider variation in the field. The iPhone on the way into Lees Paddocks is happy to have you swimming back and forth across the Mersey. The limitation of the aerial and as SOB points out the quality of the software means it is a dubious proposition for plotting paths while the bigger aerial on the Garmin 62s along with an GPS optimised software comes into its own. Now a ten fold increase in the basic accuracy of the GPS system would turn the iPhone into as good or not better than the perfectly adequate performance of the Garmin. Not sure if that point got across or some poster become obsessed with the "prefect" condition claimed accuracy and the size of their member.

We are seeing with the new generation of cameras that the distortion in the lens is being corrected by software. Here is a case of technology outside the traditional lens improvement enhancing image quality. Likewise better firmware in GPSs and intrinsic system accuracy might well see the end of the dedicated GPS, outside precision surveying. A hundred metre variation is rather important but a 0.1 metre error rather excessive for most needs.

Often technology is a missed opportunity for many. Apple figured correctly that elegant design, high resolution screen and impressive antenna design would make a winning product with the 4S. I think they succeeded and made Nokia look rather second hand. Nokia are gambling that the phone will be the main camera for many people with their current offering. I admire people that can see a use for some technological advantage that others have closed minds to.

As for sub one metre accuracy, assuming it is possible in the field, it is a boon for people mapping fauna. Outside this forum is a massive number of articles on fauna and the studying of it. My love of bushwalking was started by a person that did a thesis on the location and growth habits of a rather small plant that is contained in a smallish area. His biggest issue was the manual work of accurately mapping its growing location to establish its preferred growing habitat. This might be rather too specialised to many but for more than a few people such things are of great interest. I know that someone is doing a PHD study on rain fall and river flows. Their biggest issue is getting data. They have had a long battle prying data out of various government departments with an amazing array of reasons for the departments not to give this up. Open sources of data would make their life easier and result in a better PHD.

I could not hope but to notice one poster having a subtle swing for someone posting a small section of commercial map protected under copyright. It is breaking the law to say post a map that is the work of another unless it is available in the public domain. OSM gives people the ability to reference walks to maps without fear of prosecution for copyright infringement. OSM is a better product the more accurate the maps are QED the better the GPS the better the maps.

Over the last week I have noticed a nastiness on this forum directed at more than me that is against the stated aim of the forum. By all means disagree but why such words that require moderation?

Regards

doogs wrote:Ent, I think you should just be happy that we have one of the western worlds last great wilderness areas in our state. As wT mentioned that the more information that is put on a map about these areas the wilderness experience diminishes and besides it is impossible to put every bit of information on a map. If you have run out of tracks to walk on then I suggest you take up off track walking. Personally I would love Ordinance Survey quality of map in Tasmania but our state just doesn't have the same funds as the British government so I think what we have is quite adequate. As for the map on your GPS, surely you take a paper map too when walking in case of electronic failure?
Try educating yourself on the history and truth behind maps, the different agendas of the map makers are quite interesting. You may even enjoy it more than whingeing on here about your mapping on your GPS being slightly inaccurate

+1

You don't know how lucky you are.
In fact, one of the things I am most looking forward to about being back in Tassie is using proper maps all the time. There's no such thing as a consistent 1:25,000 topo with 10m contour intervals (which is the Tasmanian standard) up here, especially for the Australian Alps where, at times, you could do with them. The CDA maps of the NSW & ACT sections are mostly 20m intervals - which is daft on a 1:25,000 map - and Vicmap have gone to 1:50,000 maps. Plus they use even worse paper than TasMap.
There are private mapping companies like Rooftop, but the scale varies and they seldom have proper contours for the areas I walk. Believe me, TasMap are lightyears ahead of their mainland equivalents. Except on digital pricing . . .

Ent wrote:Over the last week I have noticed a nastiness on this forum directed at more than me that is against the stated aim of the forum. By all means disagree but why such words that require moderation?

Perhaps it's because you show no signs of noticing criticism about your obsessional tendencies until it's reached the level of a beating over the head with a large club?

It would seem that a few nerves have been struck here. I'm going to lighten the air and change the wind direction.

Google Maps can be edited using Google Map Maker http://www.google.com/mapmaker

This is a great tool for people who gps track themselves whilst walking and wish to share their information. Google Maps has a topographic view aswell.

I personally would use this information to give me ideas on where particular tracks go. Sometimes I read names of tracks in forum comments and wonder where that is. I'm not likely to drive 2 hours to a map store and hunt through a map to find the track to get a better idea of the place. But I am likely to jump on Google Maps and check it out. If the track interested me enough from seeing it on Google Maps, perhaps then I would buy the maps.


With respect to New Zealand, high quality Topo maps for the entire country are free and easy to view and download online. This is an example of how information can be made for readily accessible and assist people in entering National Parks. I would like something similar for Australia, but I suspect there may be some people on this forum who disagree.