That garmin is a cool toy, but pricey ($400 for the device plus $50/mo for unlimited text service). What does your family member do that they have one? It seems like the kind of thing a park ranger would have, or that someone might rent before going on a long hike in a remote area.
I live in a very rural area of the US, so I probably have an over-representative sample, but mostly folks I know who own one (myself included) view it at as an essential piece of backcountry safety equipment. If you spend 1 or 2 weekends per month in areas without cell signal (even recreationally, as is my case), it quickly becomes worthwhile even just as a means of emergency communication for people to contact _you_, not to mention the ability to call for rescue if you're unfortunate enough to have an accident where you need to be medivac'd.
How many of those people have a PS5 ($400+, depending on edition), PS4 ($400 at launch) or some flavor of Xbox ($400 or so, depending on edition). I have friends who own multiple game consoles and don't consider it unrestrained opulence that owning a Garmin Inreach supposedly represents.
I heard that cell phone services near NYC were down during 9/11. If a similar event that disrupted regional cell phone towers were to happen again, a garmin inreach would allow me to stay connected right? Since it's not dependent on the infrastructure near the user (and this is assuming a regional event where cell phone services are not overloaded / down in a different country, so that you can reach the 2nd party)
Assuming such a network stays available for non-emergency use, maybe.
9/11 also ended up jamming 911 and emergency responders' networks (their radios were not designed to have thousands of firefighters and police officers and ambulances concentrated in one mass event) so if something were available I'd assume they would commandeer it.
Pricey, but priceless for someone who is spending even a moderate amount of time enjoying the backcountry. In context, a typical REI-equipped backpacker is spending $100+ on boots, $200+ on a tent, $200+ on a pack, $100+ per piece of high quality outerwear, not to mention hundreds or thousands more on skis/bikes/climbing gear if they do more than just hike/backpack. When you're laying out that amount of cash just to go out and do your favorite activity, it makes sense and is fairly common to spend an additional $400 for a convenient portable distress/backcountry connectivity plan.
What does your family member do that they have one?
Goes on a hike and realizes that a lot of BC doesn't have any cell service?
I haven't used mine for an actual emergency, but it did come in handy in Yukon with an irreparable motorcycle tire. I mostly use it as a backcountry text message device to let the spouse know I'm not dead, or just general chat if I have messages left. Regardless, "long hike in a remote area" defines even a lot of day hikes in WA state, let alone the interior of BC. There probably isn't a month that goes by that I don't grab mine for one remote adventure or another.
There are still some of us who have CB radios (with all their limitations acknowledged) in our vehicles for back country emergency use, and I occasionally see mobile ham radio operators. A Garmin inReach seems like it would be a good addition.
You'll need a special VHF radio for that kind of traffic tracking on Forest Service Roads in BC, and there are specific usage patterns you must follow:
Citizen-Band "CB" is a pretty specific type of AM radio limited to a number of defined channels around 27MHz.
Those Baofeng radios are VHF/UHF (140MHz/440MHz) FM radios, not "CB". If you had a Baofeng, and your buddy had a CB, there is no good way they would be able to communicate. These radios can operate in a wide range of frequencies with various levels of legality. But yeah in the US and Canada its generally legal to receive a transmission...other than maybe old cellular phones but that's another complicated mess.
I think so as well, but it looks like they had their terminology confused. They used the term CB originally, then talked about using a Baofeng. I'm just pointing out that CB is something very different from VHF FM. Many lay people see a radio with a handmike and think "CB".
That's an excellent point - using the channel maps at the site I linked to above, there is nothing to stop someone with a scanner keeping informed of FSR traffic.
Just one other point: on an FSR an average person's general sense of traffic "right of way" is generally wrong and can result in some terrible accidents far from help. To wit: the bus crash involving UBC students outside Bamfield.
Said family member mentioned in the parent thread keeps a handheld radio (I don't know the exact tech specs, sorry) for such occasions. That said, they mostly use it to just listen for any logging trucks calling out checkpoints so they can avoid getting in their way when travelling to their remote campsites.
Coupled with a Garmin inReach w/ backcountry maps installed, it gives us peace of mind in case something goes wrong out in the bush.
They frequently go camping with their family in the interior of BC so they always have one for emergencies. I agree they can be pricey, but it obviously paid for itself just in this situation alone :)
I know a decent number of folks in the Washington ski/climb/do-things-in-remote-areas scene who have em, though more common is the type that doesn't let you sms and doesn't have a monthly fee (basically a please help or I'm not getting home button). That said most of my friends with inreaches don't have the unlimited sms plan, and just budget the limited number for check-ins.
And yes, it's generally a good idea for anybody hiking in areas without cell phone reception - even if it's not particularly far out from populated areas! I live in North Bend, WA, and it feels like almost every year there's at least one hiker lost on one of the popular local trails. Sometimes they get lucky:
I mentally shudder every time I go hiking there, and see all the people dressed in cotton clothing and wearing street shoes (or even flip flops!) as they head towards the trail from the trailhead parking lot. Maybe there's something about well-maintained trails that promotes a false sense of security? Like, it looks neat and well-travelled, there's plenty of signage, so what could possibly go wrong? And it mostly doesn't - but when it does, it can get real bad real quick.
I don't have one personally but if I did more solo hiking in more remote areas, especially in the Western US I'd probably break down and get one. Cell service isn't dependable and I'd likely convince myself that it was cheap insurance in the grand scheme of things.
Of course, people managed for a very long time without having the ability to call for help or check in and they generally were OK with that. (And calling for help doesn't mean that Superman is going to swoop in and pick you up anyway.) But they're probably a reasonable safety aid if you're somewhere that doesn't have reliable cell service.
People also died in the back woods a lot more than they do now. There are tons of injuries that go from minor to fatal if you don’t have timely rescue. A rescue beacon or call doesn’t guarantee a good outcome, but it drastically changes the odds.
>People also died in the back woods a lot more than they do now.
That certainly could be true although I suspect a lot of people are also less prepared/careful today because they assume they can just call for help. And then they end up with a dead battery, no cell reception, or conditions are just such that rescue is delayed.
That said, a cell phone probably should be on your "10 things to carry" list these days. And I could certainly be convinced that an inReach-like things should be too if you're regularly off by yourself in areas without a lot of people.
Also, more people are in the back woods these days for recreational purposes rather than pure necessity, which also confounds the numbers. The relationship between safety gear and risk taking attitudes seems to be relatively complicated, and none of the sources I’ve read have managed to pin down whether or not safety equipment reliably produced more risk taking behavior.
Still, if I was in the habit of going further afield than your typical day hiker, or lived in a remote area, I think a rescue beacon would be a minimum requirement. An inReach gives you rescue functionality and GPS, so it’s kind of a win win.
The rumors of a satellite enabled iPhone might change this calculus again. Time will tell on that one.
Even for a typical day hikers these things can save lives. It's surprisingly common for people to get lost a couple hundred yards off the trail, and even remain close to the trail even as they wander around all lost. This can easily happen on a day hike.
Certain recreational activities are in fact new as hobbies, at least at scale. Skiing, mountaineering, and camping were once things you did out of necessity, not for funsies.
For example, our records for recreational skiing stretch back basically 300 years. Mountaineering has been done practically forever, but as a mass hobby it’s also basically 250 or so years old. The idea that you’d do it for fun rather than as a spiritual quest or to catch a lost sheep is a fairly new idea.
Hiking is a bit more debatable. Humans have walked on local trails for practical and recreational purposes forever. Some European trails are clearly very old, so that’s hardly new. But I think the idea of backpacking deep into the woods for fun has exploded in popularity over the past century, and certainly got a huge kick in the pants with the creation of the national park system.
Well, whether we mean the past century or the basically the entire existence of the United States, it's certainly much older than the GPS devices we're talking about, which was the sort of timeframe I had in mind when I said it is not a "fad." If we mean a couple hundred years then we could also call driving a car newfangled and faddish.
Yes, but that actually somewhat reinforces my general point if you think about it. Robin Hood hid in the woods because that’s where the power of the state couldn’t reach him. The legend tips it’s hat to the general understanding that deep forests were effectively stateless territory beyond the reach of the law.
For most of human history untamed woods and mountains have been dangerous, unordered places. This is where political dissidents, bandits, and runaway slaves have gone specifically because they’re not places that most people wanted to go given the choice. That’s why the legend of Robin Hood had him there rather than in a safe house in London.
Living in the woods was for bandits. But it's not obvious that the idea was less popular then than now -- one of the earliest references to Robin Hood is just a complaint that the stories are so popular they're damaging the spiritual fabric of society.
The difference between living in the woods and backpacking through the woods is that when backpacking you don't expect to forage for your own food - you bring it in with you.
There is otherwise no difference; backpacking and hiking are separate activities.
Pre-COVID many outdoor recreational activities as measured by stats like national park visits were up. (Some others like skiing I believe were down.) But without digging up a lot numbers, the parent's basic point squares with my understanding.
You can buy them used for cheaper, and pay $15/mo when you need it (backpacking trips, etc) and pause the service the rest of the time. The preset messages are unlimited across all plans.
They're super common now for backcountry hikers and trail runners. The plans start at $15 a month on a per-month plan (no lock in).
There has been speculation that Apple would build this into their phones, which IMHO would be a killer feature. Imagine having an emergency feature that could be used anywhere on earth. How much would you pay per text? $5 per text message would be an absolute bargain in many of these remote locations.
> There has been speculation that Apple would build this into their phones
I'm not sure how... the InReach (and similar products) are a Iridium satellite communication system that requires a bit more heft in the signal (up and down).
> Enhanced Battery Life Up to (4) hours of talk time, (30) hours of standby
for a non-smart phone.
I'm not sure how Apple would be able to incorporate a "no cell phone tower in sight" system... without also packing on the rest of the iridium system and making a much more bulky device.
This would likely be a very high-cost option, but it does seem to be possible. The key is that these satellites are much closer to earth than Iridium, I guess.
Garmin inReach devices are very small. They only support messaging, not voice phone calls, so the antennas are short and battery life is pretty good. It could be completely possible to integrate that functionality into a large smartphone.
When there was speculation before the consensus seemed to be it was unlikely for technical reasons.
Also, while sure it would be nice if something were a no/low-cost add-on to a regular smartphone, the average consumer probably wouldn't pay much extra, much less an incremental subscription fee. And there's something to be said for a rugged, potentially safety-critical, standalone device that's separate from your phone.
I would absolutely pay for this feature and it will be enough of differentiator for me to pick specific phone model. I live close to major metro area and I do not have cell connection on a regular basis starting from ski resort with spotty connection (does not work at all on some runs) to walk (not even hike) in the closest state park. Ability to use Messenger withtout cell is easily $200-300 feature I would pay for.
On antenna - you can probably build purpose-specific satellites for text messaging that does not require big antenna. Iridium is 485miles high orbit - you can probably have satellites at closer to 150-200 miles elevation
You don’t have to be particularly intense to find value in a full fledged GPS. We just do a lot of day hikes and a few overnighters, and the 64st ($300-400) has been immensely valuable. Considering that the inreach eliminates the need for a separate rescue beacon, that’s a cost and weight savings. If you’re even more marginally intense than I, one of these is less a toy and more a life saving necessity.
Dedicated GPS units are faster, more reliable, and easier to keep going in the field than your phone. You’ll never have them display a blank square because you lost LTE and it didn’t buffer that map segment. A lot of them will also record your hikes for overlay onto Google Earth later, which is nice. I personally have a large number of the local hot springs recorded into mine, which is very important when they’re off road and off trail.
Not saying dedicated units are not useful, but there are local-only mapping applications for smartphones, too. OsmAnd is a good example, it uses OpenStreetMap data which can be downloaded to local storage (by region). It supports local-only driving/walking/transit directions, too.
I’ve generally found the GPS only resolution of my phone to be greatly inferior to my Garmin. In cities cell phones depend heavily on cell towers to boost GPS resolution. Out in the back woods this difference becomes more stark.
I can also keep a GPS running longer with less power. My 64st will last an entire day on two NiMH batteries, and it takes less available power to charge. Cell phones do a lot more, but that “more” comes at a cost of energy consumption.
You can download as many offline maps as you want (the entire US can fit quite easily on modern phones), you get offline pathfinding, and offline maps have elevation contour lines and hill shading. The maps themselves are also much more detailed compared to Google or Apple when it comes to hiking trails.
Most of these smart phone apps are pretty bad at providing even driving directions in the back country. Plenty of times I’ve had either Apple or Google fail to recognize a forest service road, which I presume is in a freely available file somewhere, and tell me to park and walk miles to the trailhead. I’ve learned the hard lesson to have a backup plan just for navigating to the trailhead, let alone once I’m on the trail.
This gets back to whether the road in question is something you should direct the average smartphone user down given that they'll probably blindly follow the instructions. In many cases, the answer is no. If they know (or tink they know what they're doing), they can make their own decisions.
I'd actually much rather a smartphone routing algorithm err on the side of caution in this regard.
That’s a really good point that I’ve never thought about. Some of the roads I’ve driven on were very much in the “you know what your ground clearance is, right?” category. It’s probably for the best that Apple and google don’t blindly send people that way.
I own one because I backpack and frequently go quite deep in the back country (err, at least I used to before having children, but I intend to get back out there once they're a little bit older).
There are several areas within 5-10 miles of Apple's Cupertino HQ that have no cell service - the nearby mountains lead to valleys where I assume it's not economical to install cell towers.
I was in both Napa and Point Reyes a couple weeks back and the AT&T cell reception was pretty hit or miss. Heck, I'm about 45 miles west of Boston and the cell reception at my house is at least variable.
