GPS Advice

[PaddlingPitt]

Well, sounds like you experienced some kind of anomaly if your gps was working at home. Could be a good beginning for a book with a title like, I dunno, "Lost in the Barrens" or something like that.

We weren’t lost, but there were times that we were a mite confused. Still working on the trip report.

 

[Mason]

I did exactly that when I got home. GPS was dead on. What inferences do you make?

Was the map source for your home and for the landing site the same (i.e. were the datums the same?)?
Did you look at the satellite availability (estimated error) at home?

The satellite coverage further south is quite a bit enhanced over NWT and such northern lands. I still posit that your problems up north were due to poor satellite coverage. Without knowing the quality of input into the system, you can't know the quality of the output (garbage in, garbage out). With poor satellite coverage (which you haven't addressed here), your location can be off by kilometers (or more). And, sitting still, your location can be widely variable (and hence any navigational features are bogus). To be able to trust any GPS, you have to know whether you're getting a good signal. If you don't have the signals (satellite coverage), you can't trust the device.

 

[PaddlingPitt]

Thanks, Mason. I don’t really know the satellite coverage. When using the gps, I always waited until it said “Ready to Navigate.” I know that it displayed multiple satellites at that time, but don’t remember how many. It seemed like the usual number to me. But I can’t be sure weeks later. It was interesting trusting the gps at first. But eventually I positioned myself more with map and compass than with the gps.

Map source could have been an issue. I don’t know what map source the float plane was using, as they didn’t say. I didn’t know enough at the time to ask. Because map source is so important, I would have thought that the float plane company would have clarified from the beginning. On the other hand, I used the same company in 2017 when we were picked up in the East Arm of Great Slave Lake. At that time, my gps matched perfectly with their published coordinates. Go figure.

 

[Woodpuppy]

I think @memaquay nailed it. A year-2000 model GPS is not as accurate as the newer WAAS-enabled units that can also see the newer constellations. Regardless of datum, a current unit with good satellite coverage should get you close enough to see a lodge on a lake/river!! But if your jeeps behaves at home the only thing that makes good sense is poor satellite coverage in your pickup location.

 

[wjmc]

If the coordinates you were given were lat/long, rather than UTM grid, I don't think a map would have been involved or that datum would have been an issue. Pilots looking at paper maps is a pretty rare phenomenon in the north these days. They probably just took a GPS reading at the site, or looked it up on something like Google Earth.

Can I assume you are talking about the lodge on Lynx Lake? (Lynx Tundra Lodge)

The resolution on Google Earth in this area isn't that great, but the lodge can be clearly seen on "Logan Earth" (Google it.) It gives coordinates of 106.302 deg W and 62.461 deg N. After translation, these are essentially identical to the Google Earth coordinates of 106 deg 18' 07"W and 62 deg 27' 40" N.

How do these numbers compare to those you were given, and those you read off your GPS?

As an aside, the Logan Earth site offers good high resolution satellite imagery in the NWT - it was created by Northeners dissatisfied with Google Earth resolution in remote areas. I found it a valuable aid in trip planning and navigation this past summer.

-jmc

 

[yknpdlr]

Here are two examples of differing datum plots in the Adirondack region with WGS84 vs the same values plotted using NAD27 and Caltopo. The first, being on a lake would be an obvioius visible offset from a nearby island. With the second example, If I were on a densly wooded steep slope at the plotted WGS84 location, I might not be close enough to see a targeted structure on the NAD27 hilltop from the WGS84 plot. The distance difference in both cases is about 230 meters. I don't know if it is more or less in different parts of North America.I know I would not at this or similar sight distance limited locations. However, if there is a chance that a wrong oddball datum is mistakenly selected in the GPS for either plot among hundreds available wordwide, the difference could be many hundreds of meters. That could be an easy mistake to make.

 

[PaddlingPitt]

Interesting. Thanks yknpdlr.

 

[PaddlingPitt]

The resolution on Google Earth in this area isn't that great, but the lodge can be clearly seen on "Logan Earth" (Google it.) It gives coordinates of 106.302 deg W and 62.461 deg N. After translation, these are essentially identical to the Google Earth coordinates of 106 deg 18' 07"W and 62 deg 27' 40" N.

How do these numbers compare to those you were given, and those you read off your GPS?

wjmc
Below are the coordinates given to me by the Lodge's owner. They are close to what you suggest above, but not all that close. I didn't take reading from my gps after we arrived at the lodge. I was there, and satisfied to be there.

62º 27.35’ N, 106º 18.014’ W

 

[Mason]

wjmc
Below are the coordinates given to me by the Lodge's owner. They are close to what you suggest above, but not all that close. I didn't take reading from my gps after we arrived at the lodge. I was there, and satisfied to be there.

62º 27.35’ N, 106º 18.014’ W

And therein lies some of the complexity that adds to the confusion. Three positions are being discussed: decimal degrees; minutes and seconds; and decimal minutes. They're not the same.

 

[yknpdlr]

Hence one reason why many of us prefer to use UTM. There is a somewhat famous SAR incident when a small private plane crashed not far from Lake Placid several years ago. Lat/long coordinates were gathered and passed from local law enforcement dispatch in one format and were sent to DEC dispatch in that one format and sent or interpeted by forest rangers as another. I don't remember if it was in fully decimal degrees, or in degrees plus decimal minutes and seconds, or vice versa, but the digits were such that they were accepted in one format and entered into the ranger's GPS as the other format. That caused them to go to a location that was 11 miles from the actual crash site before the error was discovered.

 

[Woodpuppy]

Hence one reason why many of us prefer to use UTM. There is a somewhat famous SAR incident when a small private plane crashed not far from Lake Placid several years ago. Lat/long coordinates were gathered and passed from local law enforcement dispatch in one format and were sent to DEC dispatch in one format and sent or interpeted by forest rangers as another. I don't remember if it was in fully decimal degrees, or in degrees plus decimal minutes and seconds, or vice versa, but the digits were such that they were accepted in one format and entered into the ranger's GPS as the other format. That casused them to go to a location that was 11 miles from the actual crash site before the error was discovered.

Wow, that’s bad.

We use “6 column” DD MM SS.SS in WGS84 at work because this matches our database entry format and WGS84 best matches the custom “Albers” projection we use for Florida GIS data layers. The key thing in a GIS environment is knowing the projection/datum the data were collected in so locations project correctly. We used to have to perform transformations and reprojections to get things lined up right, but the GIS does it on the fly now as long as the metadata includes the correct datum.

 

[Mason]

wjmc
Below are the coordinates given to me by the Lodge's owner. They are close to what you suggest above, but not all that close. I didn't take reading from my gps after we arrived at the lodge. I was there, and satisfied to be there.

62º 27.35’ N, 106º 18.014’ W

I had to take a look--man that makes me itching to get back up there! Hopefully next year!

 

[PaddlingPitt]

I had to take a look--man that makes me itching to get back up there! Hopefully next year!

Mason,

I should have a trip report ready in about a month. You might not be so itching to get back after I post it!

I don’t intend to divert the thread, as the responses have been very interesting and informative.

(Note: I just read an article in the Washington Post regarding writing style. It mostly recommended deleting unnecessary words such as “very,” For example, is my use of “very interesting“ above any more descriptive or meaningful than just “interesting?” The author suggested that one should try to use more descriptive words. For example, “exhausted” rather than “very tired.” I can’t think of a substitute for “very interesting.” Neither can Kathleen. Any suggestions before we return to gps advice?

 

[memaquay]

Stimulating? Captivating? More riveting than watching paint dry?

 

[Glenn MacGrady]

It mostly recommended deleting unnecessary words such as “very,” For example, is my use of “very interesting“ above any more descriptive or meaningful than just “interesting?”

Yes.

Some things are interesting. Some things are more interesting, and this second category of things can logically and rhetorically be called "very interesting". Same with books, cooked steaks, places to paddle, threads on discussion forums, and a thousand other things in life described by adjectives.

Methinks this WP writer had either a poor education in expository writing or a very poor education, although probably not the very poorest—since "very" may indeed be redundant if used to modify an unambiguously superlative adjective. But even then, "very" can be used as an intensifier for a superlative adjective to reinforce a claim for rhetorical impact.

 

[Woodpuppy]

I’d be more surprised if a modern journalist wrote well while providing captivating and insightful commentary about the writing habits of the day.

 

[Mason]

Mason,

I should have a trip report ready in about a month. You might not be so itching to get back after I post it!

I don’t intend to divert the thread, as the responses have been very interesting and informative.

(Note: I just read an article in the Washington Post regarding writing style. It mostly recommended deleting unnecessary words such as “very,” For example, is my use of “very interesting“ above any more descriptive or meaningful than just “interesting?” The author suggested that one should try to use more descriptive words. For example, “exhausted” rather than “very tired.” I can’t think of a substitute for “very interesting.” Neither can Kathleen. Any suggestions before we return to gps advice?

intriguing, fascinating, captivating, gripping, spellbinding, entrancing, satisfying, engaging, impressive, amusing and appealing.

And then there's:
Engrossing, fascinating, gaining rapt attention
spellbinding compelling compulsive engrossing enthralling entrancing fascinating gripping riveting thrilling bewitching intriguing transfixing unputdownable absorbing captivating exciting hypnotic mesmeric mesmerisingUK mesmerizingUS magical very exciting engaging interesting arresting involving immersing consuming irresistible beguiling stimulating provoking enchanting alluring seductive appealing enticing preoccupying magnetic monopolizingUS obsessing controlling monopolisingUK seducing all-consuming attractive charming enrapturing hypnotizingUS tantalizingUS delightful charismatic entertaining elfin fetching diverting exhilarating delectable ravishing dazzling amusing glamourous luring glamorous titillating tempting hypnotisingUK curious tantalisingUK provocative winning thought-provoking inviting dreamy lovely heavenly winsome pleasing intoxicating divine pleasant astonishing beautiful breathtaking wonderful dreamlike enchanted sublime likableUS likeableUK dramatic fairylike marvellousUK charmed marvelousUS fairy-tale memorable electrifying attention-grabbing miraculous idyllic endearing glorious extraordinary entranced bewitched addictive taking orphic amazing desirable prepossessing wondrous remarkable rapturous fabulous magic mind-blowing spectacular striking exceptional action-packed stirring inspiring electric eye-opening out of the ordinary intense overwhelming totally absorbing sirenic disarming forcible agreeable trance-inducing siren bonny adorable superb magnificent immersive Orphean pretty gorgeous heady distracting fairytale-like lovable infatuating dainty sweet enamoring delicate fair adorbs elegant nice graceful conjuring exquisite fiendish magnetisingUK choice magnetizingUS amiable as nice as pie too good to be true inveigling impressive moving meaty vibrant eventful unique newsy splashy relatable invigoratingUS piquant vivid racy pleasurable rousing worthy of note fresh newsworthy portentous noteworthy envigoratingUK trenchant galvanisingUK topical fine showy unboring affecting emphatic galvanizingUS buzzworthy refreshing astounding awesome stunning staggering stupendous prodigious incredible transporting readable phenomenal sensational fantastic unbelievable amazeballs flabbergasting mind-boggling

My favorite is probably Orphean. And then they have "unboring"?????? Sort of like un-very interesting.

 

[Alan Gage]

'Double plus interesting' seems like the obvious choice.

Alan

 

[PaddlingPitt]

Wow, Mason!!

I am working on my Barren Grounds trip report, which is currently 120 pages, as it has lotsa pictures. Out of curiosity, I searched for “very ” with a space after the y. There were 107 examples. I started going through to look at them. Some I kept. Some I deleted. Some I came up with more descriptive words. About half way through, I accidentally hit “find and delete,” which then deleted all examples of “every .” It took out every very followed by a space. So now I had quite a few occurrences of “enextword.” Very entertaining!

 

[Mason]

'Double plus interesting' seems like the obvious choice.

Alan

I don't know, "way interesting" sums up them all, and is economical.