8 ms·

Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in the UK. A tender 1345m ASL but starts more or less at sea level so actually a solid piece of rock. On the one hand, duh, h

Ben Nevis is the highest mountain in the UK. A tender 1345m ASL but starts more or less at sea level so actually a solid piece of rock. On the one hand, duh, how stupid can people be to only trust a mobile phone for directions in the mountains. But then I guess there is a whole generation of adults now who grew up with phone apps or websites being the authoritative answer in so many areas of life. It may not be just stupidity keeping them from looking at a paper map. How many of them were ever shown one? I’m assuming it was recent teenagers who got confused by Google Maps, but even if not, the broader point stands.

dageshi 5y ago
I would guess most under 35 wouldn't even think to use a paper map honestly, I wouldn't and I'm actually closer to 40, but I've been getting my information from online sources since the the late 90's, I don't use paper anything in any other part of my life, there's no obvious reason to use a paper map over google maps or some specialist mountaineering app.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I essentially always have a paper map with me unless I know the place in question (and know it's on OSM). For relatively advanced hiking? I'll have a paper map and compass and will have looked up the details of routes in a guide book or online. But, yes, I am older although probably more to the point I lead group hikes so I'm a bit anal about prep and safety. And hike in winter when electronics are especially suspect. I would never consider heading up Ben Nevis based on Google Maps.
  - spaetzleesser 5y ago
    I don't use paper maps but always look at maps on gaiagps and alltrails to compare. I also look at guide books or articles about the route.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      That's certainly fair but, probably because I often hike in winter, I really don't want to potentially end up in a situation where I have a serious issue if my phone fails. Though they're pretty reliable, phones just have failure modes that physical maps don't. I don't worry about it in casual situations especially when there are other people around. Shoot a photo of the map at the parking area for a casual hike? Sure. But I like having backups when I can.
- andyjohnson0 5y ago
  It's about the affordances. I hike and climb in the UK and I would never head into serious mountain country without a physical paper map. Paper maps (with a simple map case) are more durable than a smartphone or tablet. They don't stop working when it gets too cold or wet, or when you lose connectivity and realise you forgot to download, or when you drop them. The battery doesn't run down. You can spread a paper map out and get the context of the terrain for miles around without losing resolution. I dont need to wipe snow or rain off the screen of a paper map, or try to scroll it with gloves on. They have a physicality that matches the physicality of being in the mountains. I have Ordnance Survey mapping for the whole of the UK on my phone, but paper maps are in a different league. For what it's worth, I'm the other side of fifty to you.
  - daleharvey 5y ago
    > or when you drop them Paper maps very often stop working when you (unknowingly) drop them, the advantage phones have is that usually everybody has a phone, less so with paper maps.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    It's not nearly that one-sided. Wetness can definitely screw up a paper map, and if it's currently snowing or raining I'd much rather be using a phone than actual paper. You can forget to download a map, and you can forget to bring a map, so that's about equal. For paper the battery doesn't run down but also it doesn't work at night. Spreading paper out is great sometimes, yes. I have no idea what you mean when you say the physicality "matches".
    - thombles 5y ago
      > Wetness can definitely screw up a paper map This is why map shops have a laminator. It's always worth the extra. > if it's currently snowing or raining I'd much rather be using a phone than actual paper I wouldn't. Even with a fancy new waterproof iPhone, face ID won't work with all my gear on, the screen touch sensor is all over the place, and that's after I've taken off my glove. You're not wrong that phones are often more convenient. If I wander off a poorly marked track, OSM & GPS is my plan A to get back. When it works it's incredibly efficient. But the first time you've been leaning on that GPS a bit too much, you're out on your own at 10% battery and you don't have a backup, the map and headlamp solution begins to make sense in a very visceral way. I'll carry both phone and paper even for daywalks unless it's a super clear track. It's not a matter of "forgetting to bring a map", it's a basic item like water.
- FormFollowsFunc 5y ago
  I used carry a paper map and compass a lot more but not so much anymore, especially not for a day hike. I probably would for a multi-day hike as a backup. Ben Nevis is quite a touristy mountain with a very clear wide busy path up it if you go the tourist route so no map is needed - just follow the person in front of you.
GekkePrutser 5y ago
I always use OSM while hiking. At least in Spain its coverage is much better than Google's. OSM shows the smallest trails where on Google Maps I'd be walking in a totally green screen. There's also a local alternative called WikiLoc but they're paid and they don't allow payments outside the play store sadly. Of course nothing beats a paper map for reliability but I tend to refer to OSM unless it's not available somehow.
- NGRhodes 5y ago
  OSM also shows far more land and terrain detail, in particular field and tree boundaries which makes it far more useful for wayfinding and deciding which options is more favourable, often a longer route is an easier walk, but you are left totally guessing with Google Maps.
- yoursunny 5y ago
  I wish OSM can show the trails instead of a green blob in some of our state parks. Maryland USA.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Anybody can contribute, just go read their site which explains what you're agreeing to, sign up and start contributing. If you want to actually create a whole walking trail through a state park that might need tools (on which OSM's site can advise good choices for your platform) but where people's only problem is "The name of my street was spelled wrong" you can fix that from the web.
  - matkoniecz 5y ago
    What you were using for viewing OSM data? Have you tried Osmand/mapy.cz?
londons_explore 5y ago
I think in todays world, a mobile phone is a far safer mapping device than a paper map. The main downside of a phone is is can have no signal or battery. People understand that downside well, and often prepare by bringing battery packs, solar chargers, offline maps apps, many phones in a group, etc. The main downside of a paper map is you don't have the blue dot. People have less experience with it. Usually only 1 person in a group has purchased the expensive map. When lost in adverse conditions, I'd give the group of inexperienced teenagers with a phone higher odds of getting home for dinner than those with a paper map.
- raspyberr 5y ago
  I'm not really sure what you're trying to say or compare or even why. "Mobile phone" online maps often have completely blank areas in wild areas whilst a specific "paper" map for that area is rich in detail. If you're going hiking, you'd take both a paper map for the area because it's more likely to be accurate AND you'd take a phone because GPS and being able to call for help is useful.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    And even calling for help can be marginal. Not that it's a panacea but if you're really concerned about always (usually) being able to call for help, you probably should have a personal locator beacon. There is a shift in attitude though. I was having an online discussion with someone who basically said they'd be terrified if they couldn't call for help and, for me, that's the default assumption if I'm away from civilization.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    It’s the UK. You have apps on your phone with the Ordnance Survey maps.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Which are awesome. I also carry the Tyvek maps. (And I suspect a number of "just use your phone" people haven't actually bought the OS maps for the location in question.)
SheinhardtWigCo 5y ago
The article doesn't say anyone got confused by this "route". This is much ado about nothing.
tialaramex 5y ago
Also AIUI this "route" is like, "Here's where you could go in your car as a solid line, now, here's where you said you wanted to go, at the end of the dotted line - as you can see it's some distance away from where the car is at the end of the journey". I assume the same "route" would suggest that you can just walk straight through the sea if you ask to drive to one of the islands with no roads on it, but presumably somehow "Go up this dangerous mountain" is a "route" while "Walk on water" is not. Note that Google does not propose you could walk straight up Nevis if you say you want to walk there, this "route" was produced for car journeys. A few of my friends tried to walk up Nevis a few years back, and during the final climb the people who were least prepared couldn't handle it any more, weather was getting worse and - sensibly - the entire group returned rather than leave them or try to drag them the rest of the way. Seems like "I bought this intermediate grade mountaineering gear and have spent a month breaking it in" was overkill, but "The boots I wear to work will be fine" was not enough.
reaperducer 5y ago
I’m assuming it was recent teenagers who got confused by Google Maps I don't entirely blame the GPS generation for this. As a society, we've been telling ourselves "Computers are never wrong" for almost a hundred years. Yet every day on HN, we see stories where the computers, or at least the systems they run, are wrong. It's only gotten worse since people started believing that Google is the arbiter of truth. My wife told me that she's had people banging on the doors after hours where she works because Google told them they were open. Where she works doesn't have public hours at all, so there's no reason any should be listed in Google. Still, it reminds me of my days working in television when people would call up the TV station in a fit if what was on TV wasn't what was listed in the TV Guide. I don't know how many times I've told people, "We decide what to put on the air, not the TV Guide." Perhaps it's all just a general abdication of the responsibility to think.
andyjohnson0 5y ago
The other "problem" with the Ben is that it isn't particularly remote. There's a sizable to n (Fort William) quite close to it, and roads run to the north and west. But the lack of remoteness is deceptive. The flattish top of the mountain makes it hard to lose height quickly in bad weather, and poor navigation can bring you into gullies that quickly become almost vertical. The weather can change very quickly; the UK has a maritime climate and the mountain is about as far north as Moscow.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Sounds a lot like the situation with Mount Washington in New Hampshire. As a cold injuries expert I knew would say, it's located where a lot of idiots can go up it unprepared or when they shouldn't. One of the more recent deaths was a woman who was very fit and prepared. She just set off in the face of really bad incoming weather reports that she apparently thought she could keep ahead of. Turned out to be some of the worst weather of the past few decades.
daleharvey 5y ago
How stupid can people be that a device that can store vast amounts of information, be updated constantly, can track your exact movements and contact people instantly across the world not be more useful than some ink printed on a fragile piece of paper. The fact that a bit of paper easily destroyed by some water (not exactly unknown conditions for Scotland) is considered essential should be a source of embarassment for the tech industry, not smugness.
- ghaff 5y ago
  I mean this in the nicest possible way but you don't know what you're talking about. Do I use GPS? Of course I do. But maps on tyvek or protected by plastic are not exactly fragile. Batteries are always going to be an issue especially in cold conditions and I wouldn't want to put myself in a situation where a device problem left me in a really bad place.
  - daleharvey 5y ago
    You have me there, it's not like I am Scottish and spend most of my time navigating the Scottish outdoors or anything ...
    - ghaff 5y ago
      If you know an area and don't even really need a map, it's not really a big deal. I usually carry one by habit when I hike trails I know well but I often don't bother with a compass. But unfamiliar areas where getting lost is a real possibility? No I don't want to abdicate full responsibility for my safety to a phone.
      - daleharvey 5y ago
        If you are doing it in the winter then sure, in the summer you don't even need a phone the route is very clear. My comment wasnt particularly that paper backups werent the best option in some circumstances, it was more against the general smugness / gatekeeping nature thats fairly common in outdoors circles, and that really unless have to worry about it being cold enough to effect your battery, really a phone should be a better option for most people and the fact it cant be considered reliable is an indictment on this industry as most of the problems (cold batteries aside) are easily solved (offline, detailed maps, battery issues), the only problem is solving them doesnt sell ads
gambiting 5y ago
I'm sometimes worried for the kids that grow up in homes with voice assistants, where "hey Alexa" is the authoritative answer to everything.
- xmprt 5y ago
  Do you also worry for kids who use planners and encyclopedias? People who say things like this seem like they either don't know how or don't care to change their workflow by incorporating new technology. Hey Alexa isn't the problem. It's the corporations behind them and their data collection policies.
  - gambiting 5y ago
    Content in encyclopedias is curated by a team of editors - I trust it about 1000x more than whatever nonsense Alexa says. It's mostly algorithmically generated by scouring the internet, without any kind of editing - it's trivial to find countless examples of Alexa(and Google home and Siri) providing completely nonsensical answers, because the question matched the snippet of the first article on some loony website. It's great if you catch it as a parent, but I know in many homes these devices are allowed completely without any supervision.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    Only knowing, or or primarily relying on a single point of entry for all knowledge discovery is an issue. If you need to look something up in an encyclopaedia, even if it’s just Wikipedia, it already makes you aware of the plurality of sources and endows with some basic searching skills. Hey Alexa doesnt.
arkitaip 5y ago
You make zero sense. If you can't trust a map, what can you trust? Or should it be less reliable because it's an app? People aren't stupid, it's we - devs and designers - who have designed apps that confuse and deceit them, sometimes dangerously so. Let's stop blaming users and fix our shitty UIs.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Even OSM (which tends to be better than Google Maps for hiking trails) has far from 100% coverage for hiking trails. (Though I'm guessing it's likely pretty good for a popular destination.) It still doesn't tell you anything more about the route--for which a map by itself is probably not enough. It's also more prone to failure than I want to depend on in a potentially hazardous situation.
- tweetle_beetle 5y ago
  The argument being made is not to do with maps. In blunt terms, it's that mapping apps have many possible failure points outside of your control, while traditional map reading and navigation skills only have one - you.
  - arkitaip 5y ago
    People got lost using maps all the time because they were and are difficult to read.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Difficult how? Proper topo maps have a standard format and are easy to read. The harder part is figuring out where you are on the map, and what route to take.
      - brewdad 5y ago
        > The harder part is figuring out where you are on the map, and what route to take. Aye, there's the rub.
m-i-l 5y ago
One of the important things I've learned from working in technology, is that technology sometimes doesn't work. I've seen people unable to charge their cars on ChargePlace Scotland because they didn't have phone signal and hadn't thought to get the NFC card, for example. When it comes to something as important as protecting your life, you really should have a low tech backup. The top of Ben Nevis is in cloud most of the year, and sometimes visibility can get very poor very quickly, but if you walk the wrong direction from the summit you could easily fall off a cliff, so you really do need a map and compass to increase your chance of getting down safely. It's just common sense. I don't think it is necessarily a generational thing though - there have always been people from all generations who lack common sense.
GuB-42 5y ago
The problem is not trusting a mobile phone. There is no reason why a mobile phone with the right would be less trustworthy than a paper map. The problem is that they are using an app that is designed preliminarily for driving and walking cities, not for mountaineering. Just as a road map is not the best choice for hiking. Also, I keep saying "they" but who is "they"? The article mentions a dangerous route and potentially misleading directions but no account of people getting into trouble because of it. Maybe "they" are not so stupid after all. Maybe "they" can read the warning signs, realize that Google Maps is not perfect, that the path looks dangerous. Or maybe "they" are experienced, well prepared hikers who know what they are doing.
- bscphil 5y ago
  Yeah, the idea that a printed map is necessarily going to have more accurate routes than something you find online is sort of laughable. In fact the opposite seems sort of likely: if a route changes or goes out of date, you'd expect an online source to get updated before the maps you can purchase in a store (if you even think to repurchase a map as opposed to using the one you bought 3 years ago). But I don't know that I'd agree that the issue is that the app is designed for driving, not hiking. I've had similar issues on supposedly drive-able routes. On a recent trip Google Maps tried to take me down many roads that were various combinations of non-existent / closed / dangerous / impassible. This was in California. We're talking barely a hundred miles from Google's corporate headquarters. So yeah, it doesn't surprise me at all that certain remote areas don't have accurate / sometimes have dangerous routes shown on the map. Accuracy is hard, you really need local expertise. If you're going to a park or established wilderness area, the managers should be able to provide you with up to date information before you go. That's the only kind of paper map you should be trusting.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    The gold standard for any wilderness area is a printed map. It may also be scanned and available through electronic means, but that’s an extra. They are insanely accurate in most developed countries, to the point of listing individual trees and boulders at times, and that’s something OSM et all isn’t even trying to match. The fact that this is up for debate in this thread kind of reinforces my point: this used to be something every hiker would know. Route finding is based on maps, printed (curated) guidebooks and talking to experienced hikers or guides. We moved to a paradigm where the definition of knowledge is what is accessible by Google (either google itself or a searchable link). I can’t then really blame people for following down this route - but ultimately this is heading in a direction of lost knowledge. We think, oh what a shame we are losing the traditional Maori navigation methods, but I guess the same is happening (at a much smaller scale!!!) to modern societies too.
nkrisc 5y ago
Not to mention the dotted line down is clearly just a single curve from point to point. No real path in the world would ever look like that given the terrain underneath it.
another-dave 5y ago
The problem is that Google nominally operates at two levels of abstraction — one is showing you the map, of that's all they did there would have been no issue — that's parity with a paper map & up to the user to navigate. But at a higher level of abstraction, they provide directions: basically "outsourcing" interpretation of the map to them. Here there's definitely an onus on them to say "Sorry, no route found" and _tell_ the user they need to interpret the app themselves. By suggesting a route, they're obviously suggesting it's a safe/viable route. If they can't guarantee that, they should err on the side of caution.

dageshi 5y ago

I would guess most under 35 wouldn't even think to use a paper map honestly, I wouldn't and I'm actually closer to 40, but I've been getting my information from online sources since the the late 90's, I don't use paper anything in any other part of my life, there's no obvious reason to use a paper map over google maps or some specialist mountaineering app.

ghaff 5y ago
I essentially always have a paper map with me unless I know the place in question (and know it's on OSM). For relatively advanced hiking? I'll have a paper map and compass and will have looked up the details of routes in a guide book or online. But, yes, I am older although probably more to the point I lead group hikes so I'm a bit anal about prep and safety. And hike in winter when electronics are especially suspect. I would never consider heading up Ben Nevis based on Google Maps.
- spaetzleesser 5y ago
  I don't use paper maps but always look at maps on gaiagps and alltrails to compare. I also look at guide books or articles about the route.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    That's certainly fair but, probably because I often hike in winter, I really don't want to potentially end up in a situation where I have a serious issue if my phone fails. Though they're pretty reliable, phones just have failure modes that physical maps don't. I don't worry about it in casual situations especially when there are other people around. Shoot a photo of the map at the parking area for a casual hike? Sure. But I like having backups when I can.
andyjohnson0 5y ago
It's about the affordances. I hike and climb in the UK and I would never head into serious mountain country without a physical paper map. Paper maps (with a simple map case) are more durable than a smartphone or tablet. They don't stop working when it gets too cold or wet, or when you lose connectivity and realise you forgot to download, or when you drop them. The battery doesn't run down. You can spread a paper map out and get the context of the terrain for miles around without losing resolution. I dont need to wipe snow or rain off the screen of a paper map, or try to scroll it with gloves on. They have a physicality that matches the physicality of being in the mountains. I have Ordnance Survey mapping for the whole of the UK on my phone, but paper maps are in a different league. For what it's worth, I'm the other side of fifty to you.
- daleharvey 5y ago
  > or when you drop them Paper maps very often stop working when you (unknowingly) drop them, the advantage phones have is that usually everybody has a phone, less so with paper maps.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  It's not nearly that one-sided. Wetness can definitely screw up a paper map, and if it's currently snowing or raining I'd much rather be using a phone than actual paper. You can forget to download a map, and you can forget to bring a map, so that's about equal. For paper the battery doesn't run down but also it doesn't work at night. Spreading paper out is great sometimes, yes. I have no idea what you mean when you say the physicality "matches".
  - thombles 5y ago
    > Wetness can definitely screw up a paper map This is why map shops have a laminator. It's always worth the extra. > if it's currently snowing or raining I'd much rather be using a phone than actual paper I wouldn't. Even with a fancy new waterproof iPhone, face ID won't work with all my gear on, the screen touch sensor is all over the place, and that's after I've taken off my glove. You're not wrong that phones are often more convenient. If I wander off a poorly marked track, OSM & GPS is my plan A to get back. When it works it's incredibly efficient. But the first time you've been leaning on that GPS a bit too much, you're out on your own at 10% battery and you don't have a backup, the map and headlamp solution begins to make sense in a very visceral way. I'll carry both phone and paper even for daywalks unless it's a super clear track. It's not a matter of "forgetting to bring a map", it's a basic item like water.
FormFollowsFunc 5y ago
I used carry a paper map and compass a lot more but not so much anymore, especially not for a day hike. I probably would for a multi-day hike as a backup. Ben Nevis is quite a touristy mountain with a very clear wide busy path up it if you go the tourist route so no map is needed - just follow the person in front of you.

GekkePrutser 5y ago

I always use OSM while hiking. At least in Spain its coverage is much better than Google's. OSM shows the smallest trails where on Google Maps I'd be walking in a totally green screen. There's also a local alternative called WikiLoc but they're paid and they don't allow payments outside the play store sadly. Of course nothing beats a paper map for reliability but I tend to refer to OSM unless it's not available somehow.

NGRhodes 5y ago
OSM also shows far more land and terrain detail, in particular field and tree boundaries which makes it far more useful for wayfinding and deciding which options is more favourable, often a longer route is an easier walk, but you are left totally guessing with Google Maps.
yoursunny 5y ago
I wish OSM can show the trails instead of a green blob in some of our state parks. Maryland USA.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Anybody can contribute, just go read their site which explains what you're agreeing to, sign up and start contributing. If you want to actually create a whole walking trail through a state park that might need tools (on which OSM's site can advise good choices for your platform) but where people's only problem is "The name of my street was spelled wrong" you can fix that from the web.
- matkoniecz 5y ago
  What you were using for viewing OSM data? Have you tried Osmand/mapy.cz?

londons_explore 5y ago

I think in todays world, a mobile phone is a far safer mapping device than a paper map. The main downside of a phone is is can have no signal or battery. People understand that downside well, and often prepare by bringing battery packs, solar chargers, offline maps apps, many phones in a group, etc. The main downside of a paper map is you don't have the blue dot. People have less experience with it. Usually only 1 person in a group has purchased the expensive map. When lost in adverse conditions, I'd give the group of inexperienced teenagers with a phone higher odds of getting home for dinner than those with a paper map.

raspyberr 5y ago
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say or compare or even why. "Mobile phone" online maps often have completely blank areas in wild areas whilst a specific "paper" map for that area is rich in detail. If you're going hiking, you'd take both a paper map for the area because it's more likely to be accurate AND you'd take a phone because GPS and being able to call for help is useful.
- ghaff 5y ago
  And even calling for help can be marginal. Not that it's a panacea but if you're really concerned about always (usually) being able to call for help, you probably should have a personal locator beacon. There is a shift in attitude though. I was having an online discussion with someone who basically said they'd be terrified if they couldn't call for help and, for me, that's the default assumption if I'm away from civilization.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  It’s the UK. You have apps on your phone with the Ordnance Survey maps.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Which are awesome. I also carry the Tyvek maps. (And I suspect a number of "just use your phone" people haven't actually bought the OS maps for the location in question.)

SheinhardtWigCo 5y ago

The article doesn't say anyone got confused by this "route". This is much ado about nothing.

tialaramex 5y ago

Also AIUI this "route" is like, "Here's where you could go in your car as a solid line, now, here's where you said you wanted to go, at the end of the dotted line - as you can see it's some distance away from where the car is at the end of the journey". I assume the same "route" would suggest that you can just walk straight through the sea if you ask to drive to one of the islands with no roads on it, but presumably somehow "Go up this dangerous mountain" is a "route" while "Walk on water" is not. Note that Google does not propose you could walk straight up Nevis if you say you want to walk there, this "route" was produced for car journeys. A few of my friends tried to walk up Nevis a few years back, and during the final climb the people who were least prepared couldn't handle it any more, weather was getting worse and - sensibly - the entire group returned rather than leave them or try to drag them the rest of the way. Seems like "I bought this intermediate grade mountaineering gear and have spent a month breaking it in" was overkill, but "The boots I wear to work will be fine" was not enough.

reaperducer 5y ago

I’m assuming it was recent teenagers who got confused by Google Maps I don't entirely blame the GPS generation for this. As a society, we've been telling ourselves "Computers are never wrong" for almost a hundred years. Yet every day on HN, we see stories where the computers, or at least the systems they run, are wrong. It's only gotten worse since people started believing that Google is the arbiter of truth. My wife told me that she's had people banging on the doors after hours where she works because Google told them they were open. Where she works doesn't have public hours at all, so there's no reason any should be listed in Google. Still, it reminds me of my days working in television when people would call up the TV station in a fit if what was on TV wasn't what was listed in the TV Guide. I don't know how many times I've told people, "We decide what to put on the air, not the TV Guide." Perhaps it's all just a general abdication of the responsibility to think.

andyjohnson0 5y ago

The other "problem" with the Ben is that it isn't particularly remote. There's a sizable to n (Fort William) quite close to it, and roads run to the north and west. But the lack of remoteness is deceptive. The flattish top of the mountain makes it hard to lose height quickly in bad weather, and poor navigation can bring you into gullies that quickly become almost vertical. The weather can change very quickly; the UK has a maritime climate and the mountain is about as far north as Moscow.

ghaff 5y ago
Sounds a lot like the situation with Mount Washington in New Hampshire. As a cold injuries expert I knew would say, it's located where a lot of idiots can go up it unprepared or when they shouldn't. One of the more recent deaths was a woman who was very fit and prepared. She just set off in the face of really bad incoming weather reports that she apparently thought she could keep ahead of. Turned out to be some of the worst weather of the past few decades.

daleharvey 5y ago

How stupid can people be that a device that can store vast amounts of information, be updated constantly, can track your exact movements and contact people instantly across the world not be more useful than some ink printed on a fragile piece of paper. The fact that a bit of paper easily destroyed by some water (not exactly unknown conditions for Scotland) is considered essential should be a source of embarassment for the tech industry, not smugness.

ghaff 5y ago
I mean this in the nicest possible way but you don't know what you're talking about. Do I use GPS? Of course I do. But maps on tyvek or protected by plastic are not exactly fragile. Batteries are always going to be an issue especially in cold conditions and I wouldn't want to put myself in a situation where a device problem left me in a really bad place.
- daleharvey 5y ago
  You have me there, it's not like I am Scottish and spend most of my time navigating the Scottish outdoors or anything ...
  - ghaff 5y ago
    If you know an area and don't even really need a map, it's not really a big deal. I usually carry one by habit when I hike trails I know well but I often don't bother with a compass. But unfamiliar areas where getting lost is a real possibility? No I don't want to abdicate full responsibility for my safety to a phone.
    - daleharvey 5y ago
      If you are doing it in the winter then sure, in the summer you don't even need a phone the route is very clear. My comment wasnt particularly that paper backups werent the best option in some circumstances, it was more against the general smugness / gatekeeping nature thats fairly common in outdoors circles, and that really unless have to worry about it being cold enough to effect your battery, really a phone should be a better option for most people and the fact it cant be considered reliable is an indictment on this industry as most of the problems (cold batteries aside) are easily solved (offline, detailed maps, battery issues), the only problem is solving them doesnt sell ads

gambiting 5y ago

I'm sometimes worried for the kids that grow up in homes with voice assistants, where "hey Alexa" is the authoritative answer to everything.

xmprt 5y ago
Do you also worry for kids who use planners and encyclopedias? People who say things like this seem like they either don't know how or don't care to change their workflow by incorporating new technology. Hey Alexa isn't the problem. It's the corporations behind them and their data collection policies.
- gambiting 5y ago
  Content in encyclopedias is curated by a team of editors - I trust it about 1000x more than whatever nonsense Alexa says. It's mostly algorithmically generated by scouring the internet, without any kind of editing - it's trivial to find countless examples of Alexa(and Google home and Siri) providing completely nonsensical answers, because the question matched the snippet of the first article on some loony website. It's great if you catch it as a parent, but I know in many homes these devices are allowed completely without any supervision.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Only knowing, or or primarily relying on a single point of entry for all knowledge discovery is an issue. If you need to look something up in an encyclopaedia, even if it’s just Wikipedia, it already makes you aware of the plurality of sources and endows with some basic searching skills. Hey Alexa doesnt.

arkitaip 5y ago

You make zero sense. If you can't trust a map, what can you trust? Or should it be less reliable because it's an app? People aren't stupid, it's we - devs and designers - who have designed apps that confuse and deceit them, sometimes dangerously so. Let's stop blaming users and fix our shitty UIs.

ghaff 5y ago
Even OSM (which tends to be better than Google Maps for hiking trails) has far from 100% coverage for hiking trails. (Though I'm guessing it's likely pretty good for a popular destination.) It still doesn't tell you anything more about the route--for which a map by itself is probably not enough. It's also more prone to failure than I want to depend on in a potentially hazardous situation.
tweetle_beetle 5y ago
The argument being made is not to do with maps. In blunt terms, it's that mapping apps have many possible failure points outside of your control, while traditional map reading and navigation skills only have one - you.
- arkitaip 5y ago
  People got lost using maps all the time because they were and are difficult to read.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Difficult how? Proper topo maps have a standard format and are easy to read. The harder part is figuring out where you are on the map, and what route to take.
    - brewdad 5y ago
      > The harder part is figuring out where you are on the map, and what route to take. Aye, there's the rub.

m-i-l 5y ago

One of the important things I've learned from working in technology, is that technology sometimes doesn't work. I've seen people unable to charge their cars on ChargePlace Scotland because they didn't have phone signal and hadn't thought to get the NFC card, for example. When it comes to something as important as protecting your life, you really should have a low tech backup. The top of Ben Nevis is in cloud most of the year, and sometimes visibility can get very poor very quickly, but if you walk the wrong direction from the summit you could easily fall off a cliff, so you really do need a map and compass to increase your chance of getting down safely. It's just common sense. I don't think it is necessarily a generational thing though - there have always been people from all generations who lack common sense.

GuB-42 5y ago

The problem is not trusting a mobile phone. There is no reason why a mobile phone with the right would be less trustworthy than a paper map. The problem is that they are using an app that is designed preliminarily for driving and walking cities, not for mountaineering. Just as a road map is not the best choice for hiking. Also, I keep saying "they" but who is "they"? The article mentions a dangerous route and potentially misleading directions but no account of people getting into trouble because of it. Maybe "they" are not so stupid after all. Maybe "they" can read the warning signs, realize that Google Maps is not perfect, that the path looks dangerous. Or maybe "they" are experienced, well prepared hikers who know what they are doing.

bscphil 5y ago
Yeah, the idea that a printed map is necessarily going to have more accurate routes than something you find online is sort of laughable. In fact the opposite seems sort of likely: if a route changes or goes out of date, you'd expect an online source to get updated before the maps you can purchase in a store (if you even think to repurchase a map as opposed to using the one you bought 3 years ago). But I don't know that I'd agree that the issue is that the app is designed for driving, not hiking. I've had similar issues on supposedly drive-able routes. On a recent trip Google Maps tried to take me down many roads that were various combinations of non-existent / closed / dangerous / impassible. This was in California. We're talking barely a hundred miles from Google's corporate headquarters. So yeah, it doesn't surprise me at all that certain remote areas don't have accurate / sometimes have dangerous routes shown on the map. Accuracy is hard, you really need local expertise. If you're going to a park or established wilderness area, the managers should be able to provide you with up to date information before you go. That's the only kind of paper map you should be trusting.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  The gold standard for any wilderness area is a printed map. It may also be scanned and available through electronic means, but that’s an extra. They are insanely accurate in most developed countries, to the point of listing individual trees and boulders at times, and that’s something OSM et all isn’t even trying to match. The fact that this is up for debate in this thread kind of reinforces my point: this used to be something every hiker would know. Route finding is based on maps, printed (curated) guidebooks and talking to experienced hikers or guides. We moved to a paradigm where the definition of knowledge is what is accessible by Google (either google itself or a searchable link). I can’t then really blame people for following down this route - but ultimately this is heading in a direction of lost knowledge. We think, oh what a shame we are losing the traditional Maori navigation methods, but I guess the same is happening (at a much smaller scale!!!) to modern societies too.

nkrisc 5y ago

Not to mention the dotted line down is clearly just a single curve from point to point. No real path in the world would ever look like that given the terrain underneath it.

another-dave 5y ago

The problem is that Google nominally operates at two levels of abstraction — one is showing you the map, of that's all they did there would have been no issue — that's parity with a paper map & up to the user to navigate. But at a higher level of abstraction, they provide directions: basically "outsourcing" interpretation of the map to them. Here there's definitely an onus on them to say "Sorry, no route found" and _tell_ the user they need to interpret the app themselves. By suggesting a route, they're obviously suggesting it's a safe/viable route. If they can't guarantee that, they should err on the side of caution.