A funny quirk of the UK train system is that if you know what you are doing you can get first class upgrade for I think it was £5 on some of the major routes like Edinburgh to London, The author talks about the price differences with advance tickets so it seems like they did their research and didnt necessarily travel expensively
I spend a lot of time outdoors / hillwalking / mountain climbing in Scotland and it is quite fustrating and in my opinion quite dangerous how technophobic the standard advice given is.
Almost universally guides and mountain rescue people will advise that people should carry and have knowledge of how to use a map and compass, inform that a phone with GPS is to be used as a backup with no advice given on how to use it.
Navigating with a map and compass is a difficult skill that takes a lot of practise, Scottish munros are very regularly subject to almost zero visibility where even the most advanced navigator would have difficulty. Almost none of the receipients of this advice actually want to navigate, they want to be able to follow a route for duration of their journey. A task that is very simply done with a phone if someone has been given the correct instruction.
When people have an appropriate route downloaded on their phone to work offline ensuring they have enough charge and suitable backup devices alongside told someone their route and expected time of return they have covered most of the situations that get people in trouble in terms of navigation.
Instead they are routinely told to bring a map and compass by people who generally seem to be enthusiastic volunteers who have a deep interest specifically around navigation.
> Navigating with a map and compass is a difficult skill that takes a lot of practise
That's a serious exaggeration. Navigating with a map and compass was taught to 10-year-old kids in elementary school when I was that age, and then it was practiced a few times every year. Probably to ensure that men didn't waste too much time learning basic skills in mandatory military service.
Navigating with a map and compass on a well worn, maintained trail is one thing. Using a map and compass in an area with numerous social trails, unofficial/unmarked trails, animal paths, etc is a different beast. Especially if you're in an area where it is either difficult to see landmarks, such as in a heavily forested gorge area, or there are minimal landmarks.
Last month I took a trip to the swiss alps, and planned out a route with a topo map to try and link up some minor peaks off trail. Got to the first peak and realized the section I thought was a fairly steep, maybe tricky 3rd class, was actually well in to 4th class terrain and I had no chance. All because I misread the map!
> Using a map and compass in an area with numerous social trails, unofficial/unmarked trails, animal paths, etc is a different beast
Sure, it's different, but it's hardly difficult. I was a boy scout and was doing it regularly at 10 years old. The scoutmasters would hide caches of things (candy/toys/etc) in the woods somewhere and we were given compasses + paper maps only, not that there was anything else we would have reasonably had back in those days.
I'm pretty experienced and if you lose track of where you are it can be very difficult to find yourself with a map and compass, often requiring significant moving around. This is particularly true in poor visibility or when everything is covered in snow. If you keep your bearings and know where you are (which you really need to when relying on a map and compass) then I agree its not terrible to navigate.
100% yup, it's surprisingly easy to not know where you are.
I was never much of a scout, but the best advice I ever got was go downhill. If you find water, follow the water down. People live downhill. people use water. Finding somebody, anybody, means food and shelter. There are a handful of box canons in the world where this doesn't work, but like, you should know that there is one nearby before the outset. And even if you fall into the box canyon trap, you know where you are.
Yeah, for any casual hiker that goes way off into the woods, first, you're and idiot. Second, why are you wearing cotton? Third, go downhill.
That's a great point. I was working on the assumption that you had a map and a compass. When you get to dangerous terrain, hopefully you can pin down that you're on one of two or three possible spots - so maybe you can figure out where you are.
Regardless, yeah, wandering off in the woods unprepared is dangerous. and it's easy to get hurt and have worse things happen.
A simple scenario to test your idea out: you're hiking lower on a mountain and not 100% confident exactly where you are on a trail. An unexpected thunderstorm appears and you want to bail ASAP.
Do you climb up to an exposed area in the mountains to figure out where you are? While a storm rolls in?
Or, do you stay roughly where you are, lower down, and try to use map to locate yourself?
It really isn't. I did all that as a kid and still get hopelessly lost. Source: Experienced hiker, backpacker and mountain runner, over several continents.
The trouble here is that now we have two opposing anecdotes.
Makes me think there is more to this. I suspect there are other major variables in play. I get hopelessly lost. My brother is exactly the opposite. He has special awareness and a sense of direction that is natural and innate. I think my issue is Aphantasia.
This makes me think the training is both reasonable and natural for some, and extremely difficult for others.
Pre-technology, tracking/navigation was a highly valued skillset, and seemingly evidence that some people were just much better at it than others if accounts of famous trackers/navigators are to be believed.
We’re on an international board with people doing vastly different things.
I do a lot of casual hiking, and can see places that have basically no affordance and no permanent paths for kilometers. I would be completely lost without GPS giving me my current position, and can’t see what I would use to derive that just from a map and a compass. People doing it the old fashion way probably keep track of the sun position as they walk and somewhat have a sense of the distance they moved, but that’s way beyond “just use a map and a compass” territory.
Then a lot of people hike in the mountains with named paths and a clear view of the other peaks, which makes it a lot more trivial than other situations, for instance.
I’ve never met a single hiker who could easily navigate with map and compass in low visibility. I mean, how do you think you’re doing to do it if you can barely see your hand in front of your face? Navigating via map is ok if you have good visibility and can pick out landmarks. If you have a compass and can at least see some of the surrounding terrain a short distance away, you can maybe do it. But, as others pointed out, stick yourself on a mountain with no well worn tourist trail and low visibility and a compass won’t save you. It’s mostly trial and error at that point.
As my partner put it when discussing a group of fell runners - they all talk about navigating via compass, but in reality they just use gps all the time.
Until fairly recently I navigated entirely by map. The maps in the U.K. are slightly inaccurate despite their reputation, so even on a good day I’d make small mistakes. I switched to a phone map so I didn’t have to carry a big cumbersome physical map with me, and then I realised the value of gps. I’ve hiked in low visibility since when I would have definitely have gotten lost without gps - a gazillion criss crossing trails, high erosion, long flat featureless moorland with no landmarks whatsoever… challenging on a good day.
I've done a sport which is like orienteering in rougher terrain and generally for a longer period (24 hour events). You're navigating by moonlight or with headlamps for a reasonable portion of the event. I've never felt that the compass and map aspect is the difficult bit that defines the top competitors - they win because they run for longer, pick a better overall route strategy, can freelance by reading contours in rugged terrain, etc. You usually get lost because you make personal interpretations of landscape (is this the fourth watercourse since the knoll, or the fifth?) rather than mess up with the compass.
You compete as pairs or more, so you always confirm compass bearings with each other, then confirm a target on the landscape.
Up thread, someone talks about low visibility in fog, but it's probably not too different from using a headlamp. You pick a bush or a stick if you have to, and try not to take your eyes off it.
Rogaining. Invented in Australia, popular in a few countries in Europe, and does exist in the US too. This is my local organisation: https://sarogaining.com.au/
The 24-hour events are the majors (state/national/international championships) but they also have 6-15 hour events plus 3-hour urban events for newcomers/families. Plus a cycling version. The 6 hour events are usually in pine forests with logging/walking trails so can suit rookies as well.
Two of my kids (9yo and 6yo) and I won the family category last year (no other family entered the 24 hour event! ;)) in our state championships. 40km in 24 hours. I let them sleep from 11pm until 6am, though to be honest my ankles needed the rest too.
It's not all brawn either. People stay competitive into their 70s. Mixed or female teams are always at or near the top. Some 13yo girls came second in one 6hr event a few years back (they just ran the entire time but got beaten by semi-pro marathon runners). You can finish near the top by walking quickly or trotting, but picking a good route, being careful with map and compass, etc - no one characteristic wins the 24 hour events.
Riding bicycles is also a sport, but children learn how to do it well enough. Orienteering as a sport is done for speed, precision, or optimal route planning. The basics of knowing how to use a map and compass and figuring out roughly where you are can be (and is) taught to children.
The tricky part of orienteering as a sport is doing it very rapidly, wasting zero time while running, but all competitive folks manage do it roughly equally (there is some advantage in being able to accurately predict which of two routes will be slightly faster due to terrain) and the actual competition is mostly about running speed, not about map reading.
> I get hopelessly lost. My brother is exactly the opposite.
That's definitely an interesting anecdote. Just to double check - I assume this is when you're on the same trail, right? So the terrain/trail difficulty isn't a factor here?
I dont think they are opposing anecdotes. One of them is about 10 years old kids having a lesson in terrain and situation picked by teachers. The kid succeed and then conclude they are super smart navigators able to get out of any situation with compass.
And the other one is adults getting lost while hiking in difficult terrain/weather.
Teachers have genuine interest in all kids getting back reasonably fast and all kids learning something. Teachers try to pick terrain with just right difficulty for kids. The kids get to exercise a bit of navigation, learn something in safe setup. That is not the same as adult hiker in random place.
But I'll also note that I only know a handful of people that drive around without putting on their GPS. The people that use GPS tend to be bad at navigating without it. The people that don't use GPS tend to be better.
I'm not sure why this is controversial, given that we could rewrite the headline as "Study shows that those that practice spacial skills are better at spacial skills." The fact that everyone is arguing here seems a bit silly to me.
The argument is not about the article, it is about whether "primarily rely on a map and compass, your GPS is only backup at best" is good advice for amateur hikers.
Which I still personally agree with. Until recently GPS has been a pretty expensive tool. Even now, a dedicated device costs hundreds of dollars and typically require subscriptions. Your phone also isn't going to be reliable since its battery life is extremely limited (especially when people forget to turn off their data and so their battery drains even faster than expected). This is probably the dominating factor in that recommendation. If you are going to rely on your phone for navigation you BETTER have a backup. If you are going to rely on a map, you SHOULD have a backup, but it isn't necessary. They are going with the safest option because they recognize that people will typically bring only one form of navigation. The only thing I'd change is removing the "only" and "at best" part from your quote. "Primarily rely on a map and compass, your GPS is a backup."
Well, at least primarily rely on a map. I do tend to carry a compass in less familiar/more challenging situations but for hiking on trails a map by itself will generally do the job.
Some people are talking about situations that would be very challenging without GPS--low visibility/no trails--and I'd just say that I'd definitely want backup in those conditions. I wouldn't want to depend on a single phone.
I definitely agree with this. If you're in a situation where a map is failing, you probably have bigger problems than what the GPS would help with. It is also a situation where I don't think anyone but advanced hikers/backpackers should be in. Edge cases shouldn't set the standards.
>Navigating with a map and compass was taught to 10-year-old kids in elementary school when I was that age, and then it was practiced a few times every year.
When I was in school, in the 90s and 00s, in Australia, we did this maybe a handful of times throughout my entire education. Not a single time that I can recall we actually managed to navigate correctly.
Theoretically navigating with a map and compass is not hard, but I sure as shit would not want my life depending on my ability to do so.
Navigating with a low resolution map without a good view of peaks/valleys is hard enough... but if you don't realize magnetic north is off (or correct the wrong direction), it's easy to end up lost.
When I was in the military they would drop us off by vehicle or helicopter at some unknown spot in the woods, give us a map and compass, not tell us where we were starting, and tell us to collect stamps at certain waypoints within a given amount of time. It's much harder than you think if you start out lost.
I wasn't talking about how to orient a map, I was speaking about traversing mountains where being metres off route is potentially fatal with little to no visibility. Saying that is difficult is not exagerating.
that seems like it's outside of the scope of "extremely incapable hikers who just want to go 1 route from A to B with no danger" unless there's a super chill trail or something
It depends on terrain. I hiked/climber in BC for a decade pre-gps. We carried maps but rarely ever used them for navigation, as opposed to planning. Mountain peaks on the horizon (real mountains, not UK hills) made navigation very intuitive. Even in zero visibility, the slope of the terrain keeps you orientated. Sound is also a huge aspect. One can "feel" a forrest through the fog because it sucks up sound, as opposed to rock mountains that echo.
Def learned this skill in the army. Still count my steps as a habit. I can tell you how many kilometers I walk, and it is usually almost what my watch says I walked.
lol i did geology for my undergrad which required making geologic maps of areas by map and compass. My 2 cents is that knowing generally where you are when it's good visibility and there are clear dinstinct landmarks is easy peasy (eg there is a road that generally goes east west, and I know it's south of me, there is a single hill that is generally in that direction and a lake I can see in that direction means I'm probably in this area). Knowing exactly where you are when there is not good visibility is significantly more challenging because you need to keep accurate track of exactly what direction and how far you have gone (with some adjustment for elevation) because your current location is constantly being calculated relative to your previous location. The math is easy peasy, it's just a lot to mentally track for a sustained period of time especially if you've been out all day and conditions arent great. As soon as you lose track of your paces, you just gotta hope someone in the group remembers or hope that there is some reference point that you can see otherwise that map is gonna be looking pretty wonky lol.
> Navigating with a map and compass was taught to 10-year-old kids in elementary school
Yeah, but most of them still consistently sucked at it. The elementary school terrain was picked so that it is as easy as possible, with zero possibility to get lost or confused.
First of all, I wonder how many people actually have suitable backup devices.
Secondly, stuff does happen. There are a lot of circumstances where a very simple compass and map--and knowledge that doesn't require elite M&C navigation skills can be the difference between "Um, I have no idea where I am and how to get home" and "Damn, I guess I need to do this the old fashioned way." Yes, there are conditions and locations where the "old fashioned way" is really difficult to do. But often there are trails and some visibility and you just need some basic ability to read a map and know what direction you're headed in.
Do I bother when I know an area and the weather is good? Nope. But for anything more advanced, I carry a map and compass as pretty cheap and easy insurance.
> First of all, I wonder how many people actually have suitable backup devices.
Virtually every group of people will have multiple backup devices, for people going solo it something that should (but isn't) recommended.
> Secondly, stuff does happen.
Stuff does and in every case if you want to follow a route having a little dot that shows you exactly where you are in relation to that route is better than having a map and compass. I am not sure why you are replying to my point as if it is not a choice for people to carry a phone with them but somewhat makes the point.
A properly prepared phone is a map and compass, it does everything a map and compass can do and then adds an extra useful feature of "and this is exactly where you are"
I often hike by myself and, in general, try not to depend on other people having things unless pre-arranged.
I certainly use phone apps--including the Ordinance Survey app in the UK, which is very good. But if I'm hiking in an unfamiliar area, yes, I also do carry a map and compass because that seems like a low cost and effort backup. I'm absolutely not arguing against using a smartphone app as primary navigation. But I do also encourage having backup.
Yeh I often go solo and after a few experiences, particularly if its unfamiliar, I try to make sure to have a charged backup device with routes etc loaded.
Similiarly I am not arguing against people using a map and compass, but I think the current advice which is entirely focused on map and compass with little guidance for phone users (which if it exists, is always caveated) has a lot more to do with outdoors peoples notions of technological purity and less to do with public health
I think we're actually in mostly violent agreement,
The ten essentials or whatever you want to call them are probably rather outdated.
I still think throwing a map and compass in your pack and having at least a bare minimum knowledge of how to use them is useful insurance in an unfamiliar area. But understanding mostly simple processes/backups for GPS is quite important as well. Details vary by circumstance/weather/etc. but simple steps in terms of downloading maps/having backup chargers/even a backup device/etc. are useful and I don't think have generally made it into basic hiking safety advice.
It's really hard at this point to credibly argue that "the ten essentials" don't include a smartphone.
Maybe Scottish hikers are more prepared, but probably 90% of people I see hiking would be screwed without cell service. The SPOT trackers are pretty rare, outside of the backpacking crowd
You can get offline maps with AlpineQuest, OS Maps, mapy.cz and others. You do not need cell service. I recommend using airplane mode to preserve battery.
If you’re lost in the woods you’re not orienteering. You’ll know your general location and you can see things on the maps like rivers relative to where you think you are. “If I walk west from here, I’ll hit a river and then I can follow that river to town.” It’s not that complicated unless you’re hopelessly lost.
Yeah I think that is the big conceptual failure of beginners: inability to scale their perception, and "think big" when navigating.
You can still get a little lost if you happen to find a road that's not on the map on your way to the road that is or something of the sort, but usually it's pretty obvious.
> inability to scale their perception, and "think big" when navigating.
This indeed, when navigating a city I always found that I understood 'distances'.
When navigating in nature I tend to really overestimate how much ground I have covered. You are usually moving at snail speed on the typical scale of a topo map.
Getting some intuition on distance covered per unit of time is in my view the missing skill to have when orientering. You need to have a good estimate of casual hike velocity and fast hike velocity to better not underestimate distances.
'enough charge and adequate backup devices' are very moveable feasts. I'm experienced on field trips and I still screw up or encounter unexpected power issues.
If your devices become available or unusable, a map and compass are way more likely to get you home safe. Also, it's not that hard to read a map.
Yes, maps can blow away or you can simply be in conditions where it's difficult to read them. But there's a lot of casualness in this thread about how "I'll always have my phone" that seems unwise for anything that's not very casual.
For the vast majority of situations we're not talking GPS vs. Olympic level orienteering. We're talking about whether you should take trail A or B and whether you're headed approximately N or S.
I'm sure that the advice from mountain rescue comes from many many instances where they have to save someone who brought no backup, paper or otherwise. Yeah, I'm sure YOU will bring a powerbank, and an extra device or a paper backup, but too many people wouldn't.
>Navigating with a map and compass is a difficult skill that takes a lot of practise,
no one seems to realize now-a-days that using devices has that same skill window.
my father would be useless with a phone and gps app, but with the right charts and a sextant he can find his way around the sea.
in other words : navigating is difficult, and the tools you choose to use, be it GPS and electronics or the sun/compass/sextant require practice regardless.
Noone realises that because it is clearly not true.
There is a huge difference in how hard it is to look at map and figure out where you are with a compass than it is to look and a map and figure out where you are because there is a big dot exactly where you are.
I do it all the time and never met anybody else do it. Rather everybody happily relies on online maps.
Do you think widespread offline use is the case?
I agree that to most map and compass are rather useless, but still slightly more useful compared to a phone with drained battery or no network coverage.
Specifically for Munros which is what I do network coverage can be pretty bad and at least a few people I have talked to have done the same as me and got caught out depending on the internet then in future downloaded the route. The main website everyone uses here has a .gpx for every walk (https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/fortwilliam/buachailleetivem... for example)
I think drained batteries and no network coverages are problems that can and should be addressed by advising people properly. Instead I think some people end up over prepared and most people go in with a map and a compass but still completely underprepared.
>I do it all the time and never met anybody else do it. Rather everybody happily relies on online maps.
That's a good example of one way to reduce a pretty common failure mode.Lack of cell phone service is probably a lot more common than a dead phone especially if you carry a backup external battery. (Outside of extreme conditions but that's a separate matter.)
This for sure is an interesting anecdote, but doesn't seem to directly relate to the contents of the article, which refers to urban driving.
Navigating an urban area with named streets doesn't even need a map and compass, just a map is fine, and it is something most people in developed countries did up until about two decades ago when car GPS units began to roll out.
It should not be either a map or a phone (with GSP). One can use map when everything OK to develop/maintain the skill and look at phone when feels lost. Relying on a phone alone is especially problematic in rainy weather - capacitive touch screen doesn't really work when there are rain drops on it.
> Navigating with a map and compass is a difficult skill that takes a lot of practise, Scottish munros are very regularly subject to almost zero visibility where even the most advanced navigator would have difficulty. Almost none of the receipients of this advice actually want to navigate, they want to be able to follow a route for duration of their journey. A task that is very simply done with a phone if someone has been given the correct instruction.
I've walked in Scotland, including in low cloud/fog/torrential rain, and would suggest that to be following a phone screen's "directions" while walking in almost zero visibility would be foolhardy in the extreme.
> ...to be following a phone screen's "directions" while walking in almost zero visibility would be foolhardy in the extreme.
Can you expand on that? I have done this using mapy.cz and AlpineQuest dozens of times in the last ten years. The only exceptions for me has been in sub zero conditions where I want to keep my phone battery warm and on mountain tops, so I take compass bearings from the phone app and follow the bearing. I have found following anything on a phone sketchy on mountain summits in the past because you will have turned around and lost your orientation. A bearing resolves that.
All other times though, I find it incredibly useful. Also, I like to use AlpineQuest to track where I have been in a low power way by recording my location once a minute - this helps me to keep a mental picture of where I am on the map should the phone die. I also have a paper map which fortunatelly I've only needed a couple of times when the temperature is too low for the phone.
> Can you expand on that? I have done this using mapy.cz and AlpineQuest dozens of times in the last ten years.
I've just pulled up the summit of Snowdon on mapy.cz[0] to find something we can compared with a traditional 1:25000 walking map of the same area, an extract from the OS Explorer map can be found on page 5 of this PDF[1]
To my mind, the difference is very striking.
If you are stuck in the outdoors in poor visibility, every feature on the map can be useful. mapy.cz gives a good overview of the summit and the routes to and from it, but compared with the OS map there is a lot of detail missing. Not least contour lines!
Sorry, I meant the mapy.cz app. I agree that the website does look poor especially the lack of contours. The app gives you these, hill shading and more importantly offline maps in a very efficient way - the whole of Wales is only 175.16 MB.
Heres a screenshot from the app [0]. I wouldn't normally have it in landscape, but I've tried to make it as similar as possible to the Ordnance Survey example you gave.
In my opinion, the only downside is that mapy.cz uses the local place names, so you get Yr Wyddfa instead of Snowdon. Fortunatelly, you can still search for Snowdon and get taken there. But the local names can be confusing - I wish they had the option to have English names.
I also should add that mapy.cz doesn't give you bearings so I still have AlpineQuest for that.
I’d say it’s both: GPS are great but you should be well practiced in wayfinding with a compass in case the GPS fails. I’ve never taken a GPS on long hikes anyhow seems overkill as long as you have a good topo.
I agree in general: I am someone who can and does use map and compass, but I routinely use GPS for convenience and verification (except when orienteering.) In so doing, I have noticed that my phone apps can fail to update to the relevant part of the map in areas of weak signal. Anyone relying on GPS should be familiar enough with their equipment to ensure it has the necessary maps available before departure.
I would like to add something to this. My Android phone refuses to use the GPS only navigation with the default Google Maps app. Even when AGPS is enabled and possible, the almanac downloaded beyond reasonable doubt and my last location known down to a meter. That's just google doing their thing.
Expanding, most navigation apps in the name of preserving "user experience" will actively hide when they fail to work. They won't mention that signal is lost and instead they'll dead recon you within the confines of the road or path you were last in. GMaps will go a step further and simply guess where you just turned at a junction... which is extremely confusing when wrong and the main reason I'm no longer using Gmaps for my car.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: do not, under any circumstances, mistake your consumer smartphone with stock navigation apps as a reliable navigation device. Especially when getting lost might cost you your life.
Following a trail means you have some reference of a foot path to stay on and follow. Navigating could mean anything--it might be reading a vague description like "follow the trail to a cairn at mile 5, then bushwhack up hill 1500 vertical feet to a ridge, follow the ridge as it ascends the mountain choosing an obvious class 3 scramble on the east side that avoids serious exposure (if you encounter class 5 terrain you are off route)". With navigation you have to use a lot more senses and tools and knowledge, the path isn't immediately obvious.
Navigating is looking and matching up landmarks to a map to identify your current position, and then determining the route you will follow. (Orientation) From there, you use a compass to follow that route, counting your steps. You have to know how many steps it takes you to walk a km/mile, then you can reorient every so often to adjust your route based on your real position.
This SDK only works on the top end Fuji's, the cheapest one supported starts at £850 (body only)
Fuji has famously terrible app support, its a nightmare to set up and cuts out constantly, transferring images over wifi is slow and unreliable to the point of it being useless, the remote shutter is unreliable and doesnt have any of the extremely simple to program features that intervalometer's have. You can't shoot tethered unless you have one of the above very expensive cameras.
The whole software ecosystem around cameras is awful, I would love to see some open source community initiatives to be able to control these cameras and extend their functionality but I haven't seen much of that in the photography community.
A typical high end camera product would starts at $2000, and nowadays more often than not is $3000+.
A quick search shows the top end of Fuji X mount is $2000+.
And that’s not even the top end of Fuji’s, which goes to the medium format GFX mount.
For your other points, I know you’re talking about app, but Fiji has been famous about their software support in terms of how long they continue to update their firmware. They even market it Kaizen. And it is an objective truth that you can verify by comparing to how often other brands upgrade their firmware (Sony is not bad but still not as good.)
There exists open source softwares on camera, just may be not Fuji (I don’t know.) If you want open source softwares running on camera which significantly increases its capability, try Canon’s. That one is the most mature.
I haven’t tried Magic Lantern yet, but I have been reasonably happy with Canon’s remote app. It has been reliable so far, with the only downside being that it doesn’t offer GPS tagging for my camera (EOS 80D)
The lack of an intervalometer in ANY camera today is an insufferable insult.
Not to mention that the assertion in the title of this post is wrong, at least in the USA. We have a federal law called the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act that makes it illegal to void the warranty of a product simply because the user modified it.
Canon cameras have enjoyed some fairly active open-source/hacker support. Check out Magic Lantern and CHDK (I can't tell if that one's still maintained).
From a British perspective it's quite often public transport, bikes are banned on the tube afaik and taking them on trains can be hit or miss, some routes require a specific (and hard to get) cycle booking, most local buses are a non starter and even intercity buses are a big problem (they will often require your bike be dissembled / be in a hard case bike bag thing).
There are none of those nice bike racks on the front of American buses here. The whole system is fairly hostile towards active travel.
> The whole system is fairly hostile towards active travel.
And even more hostile to PLEVs. Electric scooters still illegal (beyond a few set-up-up-to-fail rental trials), a 250W limit on eBikes, and no hope whatsoever of electric skateboards, OneWheels, and so on ever being legal on roads or pavements.
Yet still people wage war on the car, without any attempt to make alternatives more viable.
And despite the roads being at breaking point, the trains being overcrowded and ludicrously priced, and road safety/bike theft/weather deterring all but the most dedicated cyclists, somehow transport isn't even a significant political issue in the UK.
(London-centric politics doesn't help. Many Londoners, particularly politicians, don't seem to have a clue about life beyond the M25)
And even on train lines that do allow bikes, like the Liverpool-Manchester line, you probably won't get a full-sized one on at rush hour, and even feel anti-social with a Brompton. At least in the past; I haven't done it for two years. They're also handy for putting in the car for riding from where you park it, like on the city outskirts.
Emily Oyster wrote good books about how a lot of the popular claims around giving birth / raising children have quite a severe lack of data that supports those claims. For breastfeeding in particular there isn't much data to separate whether breastfeeding is actually helpful at all vs being in an economical position that would allow someone to breasfeed.
> In the first camp — the randomized trial camp — we have one very large-scale study from Belarus. Known as the PROBIT trial, it was run in the 1990s and continued to follow up as the children aged.
And then later
> The researchers analyzed the impacts of breastfeeding on allergies and asthma; on cavities; and on height, blood pressure, weight and various measures of obesity. They found no evidence of nursing’s impacts on any of these outcomes.
If you go to the PROBIT trial, you see it clearly stated that they did find an impact from nursing:
> Conclusions: Our experimental intervention increased the duration and degree (exclusivity) of breastfeeding and decreased the risk of gastrointestinal tract infection and atopic eczema in the first year of life.
> Infants in the treatment group — who, remember, were more likely to be breastfed — had fewer gastrointestinal infections (read: less diarrhea) and were less likely to experience eczema and other rashes. However, there were no significant differences in any of the other outcomes considered. These include: respiratory infections, ear infections, croup, wheezing and infant mortality.
Apparently so, did you read the post you are criticizing?
The author made it seem like breastfeeding had no impact, but rather they just cherry-picked the conditions to look for from the study, making no mention of things that were impacted.
The author did not make it seem like that, they explicitly pointed out otherwise, the 5th paragraph:
> This is not to say that there aren’t some benefits to breastfeeding. In poor countries where water quality is very poor, these benefits may be very large since the alternative is to use formula made with contaminated water. In developed countries — the main focus of the discussion here — this isn’t an issue. Even in developed countries, there are a few health benefits of breastfeeding for children in the first year of life (more on this below).
They literally linked to a study, said "this is the best study", then said "this study didn't show benefits in [any] these areas", without mentioning the benefits the study did show. Belarus is/was not a country at risk of contaminated water, even after the collapse of the USSR.
Huh? That's consistent, isn't it? No impact on cavities, height, blood pressure, etc. but an impact on GI tract infection and eczma. Well, those don't sound like serious problems so maybe it's not worth it.
The people who were up in arms about it lose heavily in the elections however given that they are generally unionists they are given extremely generous coverage by our media who are are almost entirely pro union.
I also got one of these in Scotland and found it very reassuring and helpful, you could see almost all the other children around were using the same clothes / toys etc.
The SNP motioned to have it repealed, they are still, sadly, a party in the UK.