GPS is not bad. In fact, it is very useful. But satellite-based navigation receivers are fundamentally different from most other technologies that might be used in navigation sports. The difference is that such devices provide the user with precisely the information that a competitor is supposed to derive using his/her brain and a map: the user’s precise location.
A compass cannot provide competitors with their locations. Strongest signal direction cannot provide competitors with their locations. Pedometers cannot provide competitors with their locations. All those things can be used as tools, in combination with a map, to assist a competitor in determining his/her location. But they do not hand competitors their precise lat/lon location as GPS does… the competitor must still think, and solve the puzzle.
You don’t need to plot a GPS device’s lat/lon data onto a map in order for the location information to be useful for navigation. A microprocessor, a digital compass, and a GPS module integrated together can provide a great deal of navigation information without using a map at all. You can set a waypoint at the start and then measure precisely when you reach the exclusion zone boundary – no map required. You can point your receiver and take a bearing in a particular direction, then follow the rhumb line precisely in that direction – no map required. You can take bearings, then allow the processor to calculate the convergence of those bearings and guide you precisely along a line to that location – no map required. You can even view your distance and direction relative to the Start – making it trivial to locate yourself on a paper map!
All those features described above can only be accomplished using precise location data. A skilled ARDF competitor can perform similar calculations and accomplish similar feats. But with GPS a competitor need not use his brain to do those things: a competitor need only listen to the tone in the earphones, read the distance from the alphanumeric display, and run.
Those using ARDF receivers with integrated GPS modules confirm that GPS provides an advantage. There is no argument about that. The problem is, that advantage comes from instrument-derived position data: the very information that the sport of ARDF calls on a competitor to derive using his brain.
If someone invents a device that uses a pedometer and a compass to provide precise lat/lon position data like what is provided by a GPS module, then that too would have a similar impact on navigation sports. But, unlike GPS, such dead-reckoning devices accumulate error over time, in much the same way that human navigators do. While GPS position data is just as accurate at the last Fox as it was at the Start, one would be lucky to get useful guidance from a pedometer-based device beyond the Start exclusion zone boundary.
All sports place restrictions on the equipment that competitors may use. Futball players may not launch corner kicks with centimeter accuracy using pneumatic ball launchers. Golfers can’t place the ball on the green remotely using drones. Chess players may not consult with Deep Blue before each move. It is understood that some technologies are simply inappropriate because they would introduce an unfairness into a sport, favoring those who use them over those who rely only on their own skills.
GPS need not necessarily be banned from navigation sports. But it is not fair for competitors using only their personal navigation skills to compete against machines. If GPS technology is allowed, then fairness dictates that GPS-assisted competitors be placed in their own category separate from those who rely only their own navigation skills.
