The dotted line is not directions. It just indicates that you can’t get to the destination by car so it brought you to the closest place and you’ll have to walk the rest of the way. The dotted line is not walking directions but I guess I can see the confusion.
Most UX design makes lots of assumptions. Someone who is not familiar with Google maps could very well interpret the dotted grey arc as a real path. It's almost identical to the dotted blue path.
If they routinely use maps for transit or walk any significant distance from a parking spot, they have a completely different expectation about what the dotted lines mean.
Actually I do think the expectation for the navigation to bring you to the point from where you can actually reach your target is justified. Like when you want to drive to say Disneyland it shd send you to a parking near the entrance not to a parking at the other side from where you cannot enter (but might be closer to the castle).
This looks to me like an entirely valid hiking route that says to use actual marked foot trails on the ridge.
If you have configured it for walking it definitely uses real trails from topographical maps. It wouldn't be outrageous to assume that Google will automatically switch from driving to walking mode at the best location to exit your vehicle.
I would personally be double checking if I was confused but Google does do both things so it's easy to imagine Google being smart enough to combine the two now that it obscures so much of the interface.
A dotted blue path indicates a path to walk on. This shows up in public transit or walking directions where part of the trip actually involves walking.
A dashed grey arc appears when Google Maps can't actually get you all the way to the destination but can get you close. This arc indicates distance, but not a particular route. This is what the screenshot in the article shows (except the screenshot shows light blue instead of grey for some reason).
In particular note how the arc in the screenshot is perfectly smooth instead of following a path, a lighter color than the rest of the route, and dashed instead of dotted.
"It wouldn't be outrageous to assume that Google will automatically switch from driving to walking mode at the best location to exit your vehicle."
On the other hand, it also wouldn't be outrageous to assume that if an app is giving you "walking directions" that the route would be walkable for an average user rather than "highly dangerous, even for experienced climbers".
Sure, I think that would also be a reasonable guess, without a warning. Both are reasonable things for someone to think a company that shields itself in a cloak of magic were to do.
Honestly I stopped using USGS maps for moderate hiking and just started using google topo maps because they show trails, I'm not going to assume anything about a trail though just because google says it'll get me from point A to point B. I also actually know how to read a topo map so I know the kinds of things to look out for.
My point is that Google maps pitches itself as amazingly clever about giving directions. Expecting it to suggest when to change modes of transportation is totally within the realms of what Google certainly is capable of doing; they used to do that for that meme where they say to drive to some location in New Jersey and then swim the Atlantic to get to France. It still said where to start swimming from and where to dry off. And that was like 15 years ago.
Calling out warnings for dangerous trails like they do for traffic jams seems like an obvious thing to do for both situations, just do the same for when it's not actually suggesting a path at all. That'd be great!
I've been misled a number of times by Google Maps driving directions to places that can only be ultimately reached on foot, because in general it tends to route to the nearest drivable location by straight line distance and not necessarily the starting point of a usable/preferred walking route. Which seems to be what happened here. I don't usually attempt walking regardless, though!
Almost worse is that there is a walking path from the car directions end point to the top but it’s a difficult trail suggested only for “experienced hikers.”
I'm honestly surprised because I'd think anyone who wants to hike a mountain knows no mountain trail goes straight up like that. A little bit of logic applied and you'd just follow the signs from the parking lot.
The signs from the parking lot are for a trail designed for experienced hikers only. It’s the wrong parking lot entirely to send people to who lack experience and are casually googling access to Ben Nevis.
How does it make sense to say “you have to walk the rest of the way” by drawing a line on a map, unless you intended it to imply that that’s the path to walk?
Here's what that line looks like currently: https://i.imgur.com/tougs6p.png (note: this is with the updated end-point at visitor center, probably won't have gone through loch previously)
It's de-emphasised, doesn't show up in directions, is a perfectly smooth curve rather than conforming to paths/roads, and doesn't have the label saying to walk it.
I think the vast majority of people would correctly interpret it as just showing the distance between the end-point and the destination set and I don't think it's necessarily bad UI. But still, with the popularity of Google maps and potential danger in misinterpreting it, it's probably worth considering ways to make it even clearer.
In order to look like it's indicating distance, it has to be a straight line, not a curve, and moreover actually have the distance written alongside it. That's at a minimum, I'd say; putting arrowheads on the ends might also help, e.g.
> I think the vast majority of people would correctly interpret it as just showing the distance between the end-point and the destination set and I don't think it's necessarily bad UI.
If this thread is anything to go by, slim majority at best.
> But still, with the popularity of Google maps and potential danger in misinterpreting it, it's probably worth considering ways to make it even clearer.
This is the really important point, and thank you for making it. Google Maps is used by 100 of millions (if not billions) of people. If these issues only impact 1% of users, that's still millions of people negatively impacted.
I can only tell it’s de-emphasized because I’ve been told it is. And while I have vision correction it’s reasonably up to date, and I’ve never suspected I have any kind of color blindness until reading this thread.
If you use Google Maps on the regular, you'll be used to a solid blue line (yellow or red if there's traffic) on the car's route. I don't remember the first time I came across the dotted line, but I certainly don't remember having a hard time figuring out what that meant. Apparently this isn't the case for everyone, though.
Also, I'm a nove hiker at best, but even I know that there's essentially zero hikes where the shape of the trail is a nice arc across the map like the one in the story. I'm legitimately baffled that anyone would have thought that was a suggested path to the peak.
The dotted arc could easily be interpreted as “this isn’t the exact path but there is a navigable walking path in the general direction of this line” which is just as unhelpful and potentially dangerous.
Agreed, this is extremely confusing and a pretty big design flaw. Google Maps pops up a warning if the business you are traveling to is closing soon, or if there are tolls. It should show a warning in these situations where the road ends far from the destination. The heuristics are less obvious, but I think you could catch most cases. You could even prompt to add another section to the trip in walking mode.
Yes! I see this all the time when setting directions for provincial parks and other "remote" destinations. It never occurred to me that someone would blindly follow them.
I think part of the possible confusion is that "cutesy" curved line from the parking area to the peak. It shouldn't draw anything between where the actual directions end and the map pin, just show the pin.
All that being said, changing the directions so it ends up at the visitor center is probably a good choice, regardless of how few people actually were or would be confused.
I'd consider a shaded-in area with wiggly outlines, big enough to be path shaped, that just says "walk". That conveys "you need to get yourself to this pin, and we don't know how to help you".
I disagree. If Google doesn’t know enough about the walking path to even be able to plot it on the map, then they shouldn’t represent to users that there is a navigable path at all.
Yes, but if they know there's a navigable path but they don't know what it is this is a reasonable approach.
Obviously, mapping a destination on an island with wiggly lines through the water which say "walk" would not be useful, but wasn't the situation I was envisioning.
It never occurred to you that somebody would "blindly" (what does that mean in this context?) follow a dotted line drawn on Google Maps? That's pretty unreasonable, to put it lightly. Blaming users for the consequences of bad UI is a huge problem in software.
But I’m also confused that people will blindly follow turn-by-turn road directions too. Even when road signs disagree, even past road closed signs, even on gravel roads right before the first snowfall. People assume the computer knows the map and that the map is the territory. Yes, it’s terrible UI, but people don’t ask themselves if they interpret it wrong. At least you can fix the map; not sure how to fix the blind trust in humans.
While you and I and many a HN reader will understand this, there is something to be said that people will, at some point, mistake this for an actual route and try to follow it.
And that's on them isn't it? Is learning in how to read a map (Google or otherwise) seriously a too hard of an expectation from a person that goes mountain climbing?
I can see the confusion but users also should be mindful of the context of using an app. Often times there is no exact location for example so “routes” should be taken as a general guide rather than specific path.
If I use google map to navigate to a lake for example, I wouldn’t expect swimming instructions to the middle of the lake. In the photo in the article it looks similar. It’s just navigating to the rough vicinity, instead of an exact location.
It's not just the dotted line that is being criticized. The driving directions end at the physically closest car park, but not the most appropriate for most people.
Great that you know that. I didn’t know there were different kinds of dotted lines on Google maps until reading this thread. I bet a lot of other people don’t either. I get dotted lines every time I need to change transportation (walk to/from/between transit). If I saw the screenshot in the article the only clue I’d have that it’s different is the smooth curve, but that’s just because I’ve spent a lot of time looking at maps. I wouldn’t expect people using their phone for directions to know that’s unusual.
I don't think the article is suggesting people actually literally followed that dotted arc - the mountaineering trust chap's quote is that all the routes from that car park are trepidatious even for experienced people.
i.e. their concern is that GMaps users are being directed to that car park, (the highest one, hence closest to 'Ben Nevis' marker) not what the dotted line does or doesn't show from there on. So the solution is to direct them to the (lower-down/further away from destination) visitors' centre car park instead.
> Mountaineering groups said the dotted line crossed "potentially fatal" steep, rocky and pathless terrain, while a suggested walking route for a different mountain, An Teallach, would lead people over a cliff.
i.e. you can wiggle it all you want, it's what it crosses that's the problem, you'd have to walk around and go up a different face?
> Mountaineering groups said the dotted line crossed "potentially fatal" steep, rocky and pathless terrain, while a suggested walking route for a different mountain, An Teallach, would lead people over a cliff
I've climbed An Teallach, just over 20 years ago, with a group of student friends. To use the British English vernacular, it really is the "arse end of nowhere".
With hindsight, despite our best efforts, we weren't particularly well prepared, and had we got into any kind of trouble - broken ankle or worse - it would have been a _very_ long walk for one of us to walk out to civilization and fetch help.
Best investment I ever made was a personal locator beacon, as nearly all my outdoors time is in remote areas, often well off tramping tracks in dense bush, and plenty of fun gorges and bluff lines.
Well, probably first equal in terms of safety investments, alongside a tent when travelling with others, and a bivvy bag when travelling solo - after falling, the next biggest cause of fatalities in my country (excluding hunters shooting their mates during the roar) is people drowning crossing rivers[1] - and the mental pressure to reach that hut you're relying on for shelter, especially if people are exhausted or hypothermic in your party, is often why people attempt to cross dangerous waterways.
So being able to set up shelter, and stay warm while waiting it out, or waiting for rescue, is well worth the extra weight of a tent, even if you intend to only stay in huts.
...and I'm a chronic snorer, so being able to sleep away from the hut means no-one hates me in the morning.
I think this sort of experience brings out awareness, care, attentiveness, which we have depended on for survival, but societal environments seem to discourage in favor of timeliness.
Technology enables so much, including stupidity. When I spent a semester abroad in the 90s working at a bar in the vicinity of Ben Nevis, the people who made the trip there were serious hikers. They knew the risks. And even then they kept mountain rescue busy. Now we are lulled into believing we don't have to think about anything - we press the go button and it all just happens. Works most of the time, reinforcing the casual ignorance.
There are plenty of issues with inexperienced people walking up Ben Nevis even from the visitors centre. Mostly tourists who don’t realise that it’s quite a hike and set off unprepared.
The main path at the base is well trodden and easy to follow, leading people into a false sense of security, but towards the top it becomes difficult, particularly as the summit is snow covered much of the year. For the last segment to the summit you have to walk a dog leg to the south to avoid several steep gullies to the north. These gullies are often filled in with snow and otherwise invisible. Walkers trying to walk in a straight line for the summit can easily stray too close and come to grief. Particularly if they are following a poorly designed sat-nav route and have no actual map and compass navigation experience.
Right, and this is a common problem with British mountains in areas where people regard the top as some sort of accessible tourist attraction; I've actually seen high heels at the start. They may not be that high, but they can be easy enough to die on. Some comments sound rather as if they think the volunteer mountain rescue don't know what they're talking about (assuming they've been correctly reported).
My experience of mobile phone signal is rather different to what others report/assume.
If only Google Maps actually addressed feedback from the app, sigh. I’ve been reporting the cycling routes in Sydney that constantly try sending you down the stairs to no effect.
It seems that the only way to get google to listen nowadays is to create a giant media buzz.
OpenStreetMap also takes some get used to.
I once mistook an contour line (denotes equal elevation) for a trail, and wondered why the "trail" needs so much bushwhacking.
I downloaded OpenStreetMap data from OpenAndroMaps, and was viewing it in c:geo geocaching app.
I figured out the difference between contour lines and trails, the second time around.
Downvoted by people not used to reading topographic maps I guess ;) In all seriousness though, not sure why it's being downvoted. Perhaps we are just misunderstanding each other? That's how topographic maps work so I'm asking if that was not the case here. Surely even the online topographic maps come with a legend?
to be fair, my TomTom (when google maps was just a baby) screwed up multiple times before the online maps revolution. It’s just that at that point in time people were expected to actually think vs today when every screwup
is someone else’s fault
So what I gathered from this article is that the "danger" is entirely theoretical. No one has actually made this mistake, or even claimed to have almost made this mistake?
Historically people have regularly fallen off Ben Nevis and killed themselves by mistaking the path they're on. It's one of the things the mountain is known for in mountaineering circles. (Source: long ago was in said circles)
Sure, but I assume those people didn't make that mistake because of automated directions? Google maps will also happily draw a line to the White House[1], but no one is concern trolling about how the dotted line could lead people to mistakenly trespass across a restricted area... To me this is just the BBC having an axe to grind with tech companies.
I agree that the BBC article is poor, but an earlier article in The Guardian made clear that this was more than concern trolling:
“But this is not the correct route and we often come across groups of inexperienced walkers heading towards Steall Falls or up the south slopes of Ben Nevis believing it is the route to the summit.”
Google Maps once sent me into a gigantic snow bank approaching a mountain pass. It was right around this time of year, so I guess their historical data assumed the pass was open. I came around a bend and, that’s where the plows had stopped maintaining the road.
I was fortunate to get some help getting my car out from locals who were driving around the area, and when I stopped in the nearest town for lunch everyone knew the pass was closed. But I had to reroute my whole trip to freeways to get GM to stop trying to send me back over that pass.
There were no dotted lines. There was no way to tell the app that route was impossible.
I was wondering if/how you can get from Dorasan Station to the joint security area in South Korea. Google thinks it is possible: https://goo.gl/maps/NdRBwFzpGmp9Gme58
Personally I dont think this route is safe. (I get it, grey dotted translates to 'you might die')
I think part of the problem could be the lack of ample map keys and symbols in most digital maps. Most of the time they rely on some bit of convention from analog maps but don’t have the richness of old maps.
Some GIS maps do have rich information and keys, but not these digital navigation maps. Without those keys people have to make more assumptions.
Sorry, but if you're using Google maps to get up mountains you seriously need to consider how sensible it is that you're allowed anywhere near a mountain in the first place. Personal responsibility plays a role here.
I don’t really see a problem with going up Nevis without maps etc, so long as you take the tourist route, start early, and the weather is good. In those conditions the tourist path would be busy and it’s just a long hike, there’s no mountaineering involved at all. It’s very long and quite boring tbh (I’ve done it about 20 times now).
If you subtract one of those conditions, however, then just having a map isn’t enough. You’ll also need the practiced ability to navigate without visibility. Scottish weather is either perfect, or (much more commonly) capable of drastic changes in 10 minutes.
Yeh, I know the route too. I think I'm just of the boy scout opinion that you should have the kit and be prepared, especially as you say when conditions change so quickly.
The proper response to these "somebody-blindly-followed-navi-and-hurt-themselves" stories should not be just ad-hoc patching of particular cases by map improvements.
It should be a holistic UX review to solve the problem at its core - how to get people to stay alert and be critical of navigation directions.
How? I don't know, but surely Google has/can hire literal PhDs to solve this.
Directions could often benefit from context - do you want to go to the front door or do you want to park somewhere? Those can be very different places if you are in a city, and you may not be aware of the difference.
---
I've had google directions send me to someplace close to a city park, but not the actual city park several times, and I'm not sure why.
What makes it dangerous? Genuine question, I've never summited a mountain. Although I did get a fair way up Mount Snowdon before some people coming down strongly advised me to throw in the towel and start my way down before it got dark.
In general: For example many ways up a mountain may be too steep to safely walk without climbing equipment. Also some areas of mountains may have areas with loose rocks that can slide when you step on them, or there can be snow that is at too much of an angle to safely climb without equipment. Or snow that has ice with cracks underneath it and so you need a group of people with ropes to cross it. Or snow that is unsafe to cross even with equipment, due to risk of avalanches. Furthermore, some areas may be at risk of rocks falling from above. These are some of the risks off the top of my head.
So in order to be safe you need the right equipment and either a guide or a lot of experience. But even if you have a lot of experience it is still better to bring a guide most of the time in dangerous mountain areas. Talk with the locals and the tourist office and read guide books to know which routes are safe or not and how much experience and strength is expected.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> The gold standard for any wilderness area is a printed map.
When one is available and up to date, yes. That hinges on ... so many things. Your OP is strange because (1) it assumes the absolute superiority of paper maps, without any qualification for what kind of map you're talking about, and (2) you rather judgmentally pin the blame on the ignorance of a "stupid" "generation of adults" and "teenagers".
Incidentally, the place I was visiting in California recently had no visitor's center or easily accessible ranger's station, so there was no obvious way to acquire a paper map. It was not a small, clearly defined area like a mountain where "listing individual trees and boulders" even makes sense.
It seems dangerously presumptive to conclude that very low traffic areas traversed mainly by rangers are going to have accurate maps available at all. Gold standard or no gold standard, when you venture out in certain areas of wilderness, you have to fend for yourself. You can't always count on the accuracy of a map - survival skills and ability to use a compass are at least as important.
> (1) it assumes the absolute superiority of paper maps, without any qualification for what kind of map you're talking about
Well, yes, not any paper map. Also not any phone does maps right? Needs to have a screen. Not every computer has internet. And I suppose an Amiga might not even be able to render a map.
All of UK (literally all) is covered by OS maps, at topographic accuracy. A little flimsy piece of paper you can pick up at a hut is not that. US has USGS maps, or national geographic maps, apparently (haven’t hiked in the US). Most/all countries have an equivalent and that’s the go-to for any semi-serious hiking and above. This data is collected and maps maintained anyway, since military, police, and really lots of government agencies needs very, very accurate central authority on the lay of the land.
> (2) you rather judgmentally pin the blame on the ignorance of a "stupid" "generation of adults" and "teenagers".
Well there is no blame to apportion since there isn’t apparently a fault. But if someone is mislead by the google maps image, I’ll put it in the same category as driving to Gibraltar when you meant Gibraltar St.
> US has USGS maps, or national geographic maps, apparently (haven’t hiked in the US).
These are
(1) Easily available online, and various apps can save offline copies of arbitrary portions of the maps to be used without Internet access.
(2) Frequently not accurate / updated, and don't contain all hiking trails.
If you had looked up the Wikipedia article on the USGS maps, you would have seen the following:
> In 2008 the USGS abandoned traditional methods of surveying, revising, and updating topographic maps based on aerial photography and field checks. Today's U.S. Topo quadrangle (1:24,000) maps are mass-produced, using automated and semiautomated processes, with cartographic content supplied from the National GIS Database. In the two years from June 2009 to May 2011, the USGS produced nearly 40,000 maps, more than 80 maps per work day. Only about two hours of interactive work are spent on each map, mostly on text placement and final inspection; there are essentially no field checks or field inspections to confirm map details.
> While much less expensive to compile and produce, the revised digital U.S. topo maps have been criticized for a lack of accuracy and detail in comparison to older generation maps based on aerial photo surveys and field checks.
Good to know. I’ll strike off USA from my list of developed countries that maintain high-quality maps of their own territory.
Checking a proper topo map on an electronic device is just as good (+/- all the usual batter and water considerations), it’s a world of difference to Google Maps, or even OSM - which is often surprisingly good, but doesn’t hold a candle to a proper topo map, and probably isn’t trying to.
Open Cycling Maps combines OSM data with open source topo data and works really well. The gold standard for digital hiker is a gpx track made by experienced mountaineer, on top of OCM.
Between that, satellite imagery and offline capabilities of a modern phone and a hiking app that supports these formats you're all set.
The reason that you should have a topo map and compass, and know how to use them is that your battery cannot be expected to serve you throughout a multi-day hiking/camping trip.
Ordnance survey maps are a different kettle of fish altogether. The UK has a completely different scale of geography though. It takes 403 maps to cover the UK, what would it take for the US at ordnance survey detail?
I think the issue is using a navigator when you should be using a map.
A navigator relies on accurate information and determines the route for you. A proper map, in contrast, contains enough redundant information to remain useful even after some of the information is no longer valid. If you know how to read the map and the terrain, you can find the route on your own.
Yeah, the ability to read a map and navigate for yourself is a crucial skill when hiking, or when driving in remote locations. I'll certainly endorse that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Paper maps are also constantly outdated, can't record your track, and show way less extra points of interest.
Maps also cost money and take weight and take time to ship or pick up, meaning in many groups at most one person will have one. Better hope you don't have to split the group. Everyone has their phone. Offline maps can be had for free, weigh nothing and you can download it on short notice.
I also object to maps having no failure modes. They definitely wear out, or rip, or get stains. Some aren't waterproof. They are also terrible at night, even with flashlights (especially since most people will have lights with shitty CRI). And they can't zoom - so of you're farsighted, hope you don't lose your glasses...
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.
My fundamental point is that mountaineering, or even hiking knowledge, is primarily contained off google: in paper maps, books, but mostly meatspace and experience, gained and shared.
Is there now a generation that assumes all knowledge is googlable? And if there is an “app for it” then it is as good as it gets?
I’m not blaming them, I was lucky enough to be taught about hiking (in this instance) by real people, no achievement of mine. More musing about how knowledge distribution is evolving.
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.
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.
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".
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.
> 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.
That's the value of having a fallback though. You'd be just as relieved to have a backup battery or phone. (Though 10% isn't that bad if at that point you only use it for stopping and navigating.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I was mostly just reacting to suggestions that paper maps are unnecessary. I actually agree that you don't always have to be fully prepared against any possible eventuality, however unlikely. And that carrying too much stuff can be a hazard on its own.
I've walked hundreds of miles in England and I've always carried a map with me but I've almost always used the OS app and the paper was mostly for planning and getting a bigger view.
I am suspicious of electronics. This just seems like a case where, given the easy backup, why not use it when it might matter.
Because a human being had to put that ink to paper, and presumably, did so in an educated way. Automated machines are fallible, especially when the same algorithm might apply to walking directions in the streets of NYC, and certainly doesn't benefit from human scrutiny for every possible route it might suggest.
The comment I was replying to and point I was making wasnt about the implementation of individual maps. It was a general point about using a device to navigate vs paper maps.
(Ordnance survey maps are available for your phone)
I'm confused about the point you're trying to make then. As you say, hiking maps are available for your phone. You can use them if you want. So how exactly is this a failure of technology?
A lot of people cannot, or dont feel like they can rely on a phone:
Various functions including maps will die if your phone goes offline, your phone will chew through your battery even in situations where you really need it for one purpose, general purpose apps like google maps will work well enough until they put you to the top of a mountain without cell reception.
These are all fairly easily solvable UX problems, users with enough knowledge can solve them but that to me is still a failure of technology.
>>The fact that a bit of paper easily destroyed by some water
You do know most outdoor maps are laminated, right? The ones you'd take with you on such a journey anyway. A phone can break in a dozen different ways, or just simply run out of charge. Slightly harder with a paper map.
The OS paper maps are still very popular these days but have managed to destroy both the paper and weatherproof ones over my time.
Also very easy to lose a map, the nice thing about phones is everyone else you are with is carrying one, less so with maps. The only real way you are going to get everyone in a groups phone breaking is if you are somewhere extremely cold.
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.
Also, a phone is actually a phone. Nevis is obviously not at the centre of civilisation, but the UK is small, so there's a fair chance that somebody with a phone can get working service and call for help if they need it. Good luck calling for help with your paper map.
Every teenager who sits down, and phones mum to report that they're tired and cold and lost and instead of an awesome view they were promised it's just fog everywhere, is safer than the one with a map who is falsely confident this patch of snow is the route safely down when it might just actually conceal a cliff.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that people should discard modern technology because it isn't authentic or something like that. I and others are arguing that you shouldn't be wholly dependent on an electronic map or someone coming to help you because you're tired and cold. (And, by the way, if conditions are hazardous, search and rescue may well elect to wait un til the next day if they'd be putting themselves in danger.)
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.
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.
Around where I live (in Massachusetts) there are a ton of local parks and forests that have trails on their paper maps/websites that aren't on OSM--although it's gotten pretty good. (And, in fact, there are some unofficial trails on OSM that aren't on published maps. In the UK my experience is that the OS maps are often better than OSM in a variety of ways.
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.)
Had same issue w/ Mt St Helens, google maps was useless and it showed me how I just accepted google maps as accurate and automatically went to it w/o thinking.
Google maps does this for all destinations...
It does a dotted line from the nearest road to the actual location if the actual location isn't on the road.
Hardly a surprise when you ask for car directions...
