The only time I see this as having any practical implication would be covering vast distances in landscapes where the terrain does not dictate where you go. Flat plains and such, where being slightly off course may mean many miles extra traveled.


My world isn't a flat plain, and I am quite happy with the fact that if I move 10 meters my GPS will tell me the difference between my line of movement and my target. Both visually (at the screen) and with numbers, if you prefer that. Time/distance wasted due to zigzagging around the "perfect" course doesn't matter because the terrain dictates that you can't move in a perfect line anyway.


How accurate do you need your course to be? At my GPS I can at any time see the difference between the shortest available path from A to B, my track and the direction from my current location to my target. Heading off in the general direction of my target and then adjusting my course according to the GPS display is certainly good enough for me.


The only thing a GPS isn't doing very well is aiming at the horizon and finding a good visual target in the direction you want to go. The way I see it, there is less need to do this when you use GPS as primary navigation.


But GPS skills does not render compass obsolete! If you use GPS and really want to pick a visual target that is EXACTLY in the direction you want to go - then take the numeric course value from the GPS, add it to your compass (with adjustment for true v.s. magnetic north) and aim at the horizon ... Problem solved.

Map, compass and GPS complement each other nicely.