I'd like to start a new thread, based on this discussion of mapping.  I love this discussion and I am glad it has come to this forum because this is a topic that I think really needs to thought about more in our community.  It is really the whole subject of high tech field geology.  I'll start by shamelessly advertising a paper we published last year in geosphere that outlines some experience with the subject--you can read it for details.

Here though, I think it might be interesting to have a discussion on some specific issues.  some of us were at a workshop last summer in Montana on teaching field geology, and this whole subject launched a huge, and as you might guess, very lively debate about the pros and cons of the issue.  I can't distill all that here, or all  the issues, but it would interesting to hear some  opinions.  As I see it there are two different issues:
1) use of computer mapping systems in a research environment (be it at a geological survey, a university, or applied work like exploration--anything done by professionals)
2) an undergraduate teaching environment

on #1:  I will start by making the bold statement that there is NO DOUBT the field computer systems can have a dramatic impact on results in field studies that involve professionals.  Using these tools you can solve problems you could never solve with paper and pencil.  How many times have you made field sketches trying to work out some local details of a little structural knot?  I have endless sketches in old field notes doing that sort of thing.   Similarly, how often have you fought the map shuffle problem?  i.e. look at airphotos, back to topo map, draw the line, look back at the air photo, no that isn't right, erase,  redraw line, etc.  With modern field computer systems this sort of thing is very easily avoided.  For the little structural knot, you can use real time gps to literally map out the knot.  I have had numerous aha moments doing this, including in places  where I previously tried to solve problems with the old fashioned sketch.  It really works.  If you haven't tried it you should!  The airphoto shuffle is totally avoided, with  overlaying georeferenced imagery and maps, and with things like fieldmove, real time 3d display.  (and don't tell me you have been able to do that for years with air photos, that is a very different process!)  So bottom line, if you haven't tried field computer systems lately, you should try what is out there now.  If you tried something as recently as 2 or 3 years ago, look again.  The technology just keeps getting better and better.

on #2:  On  the education issue, I think the jury is still out.  We've been teaching our field geology classes "all digital" now for about 3 years.  The results are mixed.  My general appraisal is this (and this is totally anecdotal, an education specialist would get on my case about proper assessment techniques):  Good students do even better when introduced to high tech field tools, but poorer students generally do even worse.  That is very unsatisfying for an educator, and I confess we haven't developed a solution yet.  I think the problem lies in the fact that the poorer students are already overwhelmed by the whole field experience, and adding the tech side just makes it worse.  One thing we've started doing--which will make many in this group stand up and cheer since you've been saying the same thing in this forum--is to force people to keep their old paper notebook for sketching.  You can sketch with these devices, but it is always clunky--it makes inept artists like me look even more inept!  

I will state another opinion here though:  I think it is tremendously important that we get students comfortable with this technology because it is what they will use.  I don't think there is any doubt about that.  I just wish we had a better idea how to teach with the technology.  It is also an important development for all of us from a philosophical point of view (and there is more on this in the geosphere paper).  However, the point is this: Geologists have long had a bad habit of being overly possessive about field data.  This results from many factors, not the least of which is there is a disconnect between personal perception of the value of the field data vs the real  value to the broader community.  I personally put a lot of value on a few lines on a map there were obtained during miserable weather conditions, bears tearing up my camp, etc.  However, when you really get down to it, it is just part of a broader knowledge base and it rather wasteful when that information dies with a person when his/her file draws are cleaned out after they  leave this life.  A great advantage of using field technology is the data are inherently archival, and so the information isn't really lost.  That also potentially leads to a different mind set in students, because they can potentially begin to think in terms of collecting information "for the ages".  Now we all know that is an overly inflated view of this, but my point is that with a different mindset that comes from this technology, it might ultimately free us from one of the cultural aspects of geology that has kept us back for a long time.  I always like to quote Mark Brandon on this, which is something like "geologists are like cowboys and geophysicists are like mormons.  The geologists always want to fight it out whereas the geophysicists band together to communally solve problems".  (sorry Mark, it is a rough quote)  The point here is that there is a reason geophysicists are like this, and we geology types are not, and it largely has to do with the nature of their data.  Field computer systems aren't the only solution to the problem, but they may ultimately help solve this cultural  problem.

sorry for long commentary, I said yesterday I would shut up, but I thought this might be an interesting topic for discussion.  I'll sit by for awhile now and see what come along.
Terry Pavlis