> But you still need a compass and a map (either on paper or in the GPS) to actually figure out
> how to proceed.

With most (but not all) GPS units you can prepare a route on a PC, then download it as a list of waypoints. You can then follow the route with the unit giving you bearing and direction to the next waypoint. They will show the bearing in terms of your direction of travel, so in principle you can navigate entirely by GPS with no map or compass.


> If you are in unfamiliar territory (i.e. James Kim's fateful drive), what are the odds that
> you'll have a 1:24,000 topo map of that area handy?

You shouldn't need one for reporting your position. The unit should give you longitude and latitude, or an OS grid reference, or whatever local S&R can use. They can then look you up on the map.


> f you were on the trail the GPS would tell you exactly where on the trail you are. But
> how useful is that, really, unless you never paid any mind to how you got there?

It might help decide whether to continue forwards or return home? Or how close you were to an alternative route.


> I'm not sure it justifies the cost & hassle of the GPS.

You can take it along as backup, and not get it out and switch it on unless you want to check your navigation. Then the hassle is just the weight of carrying it.

Most will track the distance you travelled, your speed etc (when turned on). I took a unit skiing, and, even though I was constrained to groomed pistes, it was fun to see how fast I was going etc. Some people upload their tracks to a PC and analyse them. In other words, the benefit can be more than basic navigation.

Also when skiing it's possible to take a wrong turn and find yourself in the wrong valley; I don't know if that can happen with trails. Are you saying that you never, ever, get lost while hiking? I reckon I can become geographically embarrassed just about anywhere.