Natural Navigation - Sun quiz added

[tristgo]

Hi,

I research, teach and write about the subject of natural navigation, that is navigating using natural clues, no compass, GPS etc. It includes use of the sun, moon, stars, weather, plants (especially trees), animals, land and sea.

When researching for my book (The Natural Navigator) over the past year I failed to find any sources within the orienteering world and it was published a few weeks ago without a single orienteering source cited in it - despite my searching hard for one. It appeared as though this was not a subject of any use or interest within the orienteering community. Although I have found this a bit surprising, I confess to only having had a casual experience of orienteering in the past so appreciate there is probably a good reason for it, but I'm still trying to understand what it is.

Would it not be beneficial to be able to assess direction without reference to instruments, even if it is not always as accurate. Even if it is just for a gross-error check? On a few occasions natural navigation can be as accurate as a compass (when using the stars for example), but even when it is not as accurate it is often faster than a compass and always adds a bit of fun to any navigation challenge.

In a nutshell are there some sources that I failed to find and if not then why not?

Thanks in advance and I look forward to learning more about navigation from the orienteering perspective,

Tristan

[Mrs H]

Hello Tristgo - how nice to hear from you. I'm surprised that you have not been able to find any information regarding natural navigation and orienteers as it would seem to me to be the most important way we do navigate.

By that i mean relating the map to what we see on the ground by way of land shape, vegetation boundaries and other features.

The use of compass is often quite cursory - in terms of setting the map to north and running on a rough baring I think most people have quick glances at their compass - just to make sure they are set and going in the right general direction. They spend a lot more time looking at the map and the features around them (in my case hoping they will match up - in others recognising where they are from what they visualised when they looked at the map). Is that not a form of natural navigation - recognising where you are from what you see around you?

I've frequently heard youngsters who have been orienteering since an early age say "they just knew" when to turn off a path or do something else without being able to explain how they knew - that must be natural navigation.

Where did you look when you were doing your research - it's a shame your book is now published - I think orienteers could have made a valuable contribution to it.

[rebbid]

I did try and use the stars for navigation once, but I ran into a tree and a nutshell fell on my head.

[NFKleanne]

Thats what I was going to say. In the forest more often that not you cannot see the sun / stars etc, because of the cover. I did once use the fact that i knew wind blew in a certain direction and that the tree grew facing the same direction

[ba-ba]

When I was much younger I left my compass at home so tried to navigate by the sun, but hadn't listened to what I'd been told so spent the day running around in circles

[tristgo]

Thanks for the replies, it's great to find an orienteering forum with plenty of life in it!

When I teach the subject, it is quite often for people who want the skills for interest, more than as a primary means of finding their way. I always say to take the map, compass and GPS (if wanted) as well, it's just that it adds a whole new level if we don't overlook the clues around us. The sun is a really good example, it does not move in the sky in exactly the way that most people imagine and changes hugely from winter to summer (its rising and setting positions shift by 90 degrees from midsummer to midwinter for example). In my experience fewer than 5% of people I come across have any real understanding of the sun's arc, this may be different in orienteering and I'd be keen to find out more.

Wherever I have looked in the past, online and off, orienteering navigation seems to start and finish with the compass, which is such a shame as everyone who gets involved clearly loves both the outdoors and navigation: the two things that are the key components of natural navigation.

The key to actually using all the natural clues (including the stars) is the same as the compass/GPS/or anything else, having used it to find direction it is really important to then find something in front of you to aim for, otherwise you can hit a tree/head off a cliff/get run over etc!

[Mrs H]

Wherever I have looked in the past, online and off, orienteering navigation seems to start and finish with the compass, which is such a shame as everyone who gets involved clearly loves both the outdoors and navigation: the two things that are the key components of natural navigation.

Mmmm! I think I'm safe in saying this is not the case - orienteering navigation starts and finishes with the map and I would guess 95% is what could broadly be termed natural navigation as I have already described - the compass is just there to keep you in the right general direction but the navigation is done by interpreting the map and relating it to the terrain.

[SeanC]

Tristgo - now you have finished your book you should have some time to try orienteering - see what it's really like. Whereabouts do you live? Someone reading this will recommend you a local event to try. It's the best way to find out what orienteering really is.

[tristgo]

I'm in West Sussex, near Chichester and would love to give it another go. Who knows, being a slow runner and stopping frequently to inspect puddles, lichens and tree shape may prove a winning formula. Or not!

[andypat]

By that i mean relating the map to what we see on the ground by way of land shape, vegetation boundaries and other features.

Have we established whether the map is a "natural" aid to navigation or not. I'd say Orienteering navigation starts and finishes with the map rather than the compass. I'd rather be stuck out there with a map and no compass than vice versa.

In fact I remember an event a few years ago at Loch Doon (an open area rather than wooded) where after a few minutes i realised my compass had demagnetised and was just slowly spinning and not pointing anywhere. Finished the event without any signficant difficulty, setting the map by the features.

[tristgo]

Of course, there is a lot more to navigation than just direction, but to clarify what I am interested in: I'm trying to discover whether there are any natural methods of direction-finding that are being used in orienteering (yes, guilty as charged, it would have helped if I had been a bit clearer in the first place!)

In answer to your question, Mrs H: I don't consider a map to be a natural method, although use of terrain can be. For example it is easy in my local hills, the South Downs, to tell direction after working out that the hills follow a rough east-west alignment and it is possible to work this out from high ground without use of a map or compass, eg by sun, moon or stars. Then if it clouds over the relief of the terrain can still give a clue to direction.

[Mrs H]

But then what is the purpose of your navigation - to get somewhere specific - or merely to know which way is which?

[tristgo]

It can be either. It can be used in a complementary way, when walking, running, sailing. It can even add something to a trip to the shops.

I have used it as the primary means of navigating in the UK countryside, but also in places like La Palma in the Canary Islands and the Sahara, but on each of these occasions the map, compass and often GPS are in the pack too. Although challenging it is very satisfying to go for a 8 hour walk in a wilderness without looking at a map, compass, GPS etc. It is not the fastest way to travel though, which is perhaps why it is not a big part of orienteering?

Perhaps it is as simple as that, orienteering and natural navigation are both rewarding navigation challenges, but orienteering is concerned with speed and efficiency and natural navigation is not.

[Roger]

The orienteering map tells you where (i.e. which control of the 20-30 you're trying to find in the next hour or so) you've got to go next. You can't find that out from looking at the stars, or lichen. If the map tells you that the control is straight down the stream / valley / track then you probably won't need it for the rest of that leg, but you'll still be looking at it to see where you need to go after that, and decide how you're going to get there.

I've often run when away from home, on holiday or on business. If I have a map, I'll take it and use it (or memorise it if it's a wall display!), because then I can get back reliably in say an hour rather than having to start heading back after say 25 minutes to build in some contingency. But I've had many lovely runs without a map: sometimes in streets, sometimes paths and fields, sometimes woods. I try to avoid simple 'out-and-back' runs, and more than once I've seen my hotel (or a road heading the right way) with considerable relief. I can recall using gross ground shape (hills and valleys), rivers, canals, the sea, lakes, railways, power lines, signposts (distances and directions to particular places), the churning up of forest roads by forestry vehicles, the sun, the wind, the moon, distant landmarks, skin colour, knowledge that the paths had a particular fan-shaped pattern, and even the 'feel' that I was in the right neighbourhood. But it's not orienteering.

[tristgo]

Thanks for all the replies, it is helping me build a better understanding.

If you can bare another query, this all seems to be leading to a very different question: Is there a variation of orienteering that is not map-based - ie. one where the control points are given without reference to a map and only in terms of direction and distance?