Well I'm sort of with Machka on this one, but it just depends..... If I was touring the UK or Holland I wouldn't mind not having a detailed map -there are usually enough country roads with signage to get you there.
However, touring Massachusetts under similar circumstances, I think it's a hugely different kettle of fish (don't get me started, but I think New England road signage off the beaten track is just... well.... really, really bad -and that is kind way of putting it!).
So I think it depends on your time and where you are touring. But it really comes down to horses for courses, and whatever works for you and the kind of tour you are doing. I still see value in GPS for the kind of touring I like to do, but not essential. I think Neil sums it up nicely: a luxury.
Originally Posted by
axolotl
I missed this comment initially. I believe it is immensely helpful to have as detailed a map as you can find. After all, those little roads in France and Belgium are not going to be found on a general map. One thing that I have learned in my years of touring is that my level of enjoyment while touring is inversely proportional to the level of traffic. If you've just got a general map in France, you're going to be riding on "N" (national) roads, and you will have to endure a high level of traffic. That's a pity, because the network of quiet secondary roads in France is the best I've encountered anywhere in the world.
As for GPS, it sounds like it would have been pretty useless to me in Laos or Sri Lanka at the present time, and completely unnecessary on the GAP Trail/C&O Canal.