A parting (Parthian) shot
Weedavie, allow me one last comment, too, on the subject of map & compass or GPS. You seem to speak in favour of map & compass, and against the GPS, in the name of some kind of Rousseau-like "return to nature", where map and compass are more 'primitive' and thus more virtuous than the GPS. The ideal, you suggest, lies in "Rob-Roying" in the hills. That is to forget that Rob Roy had no O.S. map in his sporran, much less a Silva compass. The fact is that both of these artifacts are, in their own right, the outcome of sophisticated technological development. Modern topographical mapping is not a 'natural' product. It is the result of aerial and satellite surveys and begins its life in digital format on a computer long before it becomes the 'simple' sheet of paper hanging on a nondescript bootlace around a hiker's neck. (Ironically, modern cartography depends increasingly, too, on data supplied by GPS.) Similarly, the deceptively simple Silva-style compass is a sophisticated piece of engineering with over three thousand years of refinement behind it. (You might care to peruse Alan Gurney's very readable book, "Compass", on that topic.) If you are to be really coherent in your "return to nature", then why stop short at the modern map & compass in your navigation? Why not go back to the sun and prevailing wind by day, or the moon and stars by night? To be like Rob Roy (who, by the way, does not seem to have had any particular interest in the Munros), I'm afraid "artificial aids" like your map & compass will have to go too.