I could well be missing something here, but I've never understood how a paper map can be the preferred option when walking in extensive woodlands. I can see how a compass might be useful, but not a paper map.
I live within easy walking distance of the Blean, which is ancient woodland covering over 11 square miles and where I do a lot of my walking.
In the woods, paths are unreliable. Some that are marked on maps no longer exist on the ground. Paths exist on the ground that are not shown on maps. Paths sometimes look as though they'll head in a certain direction, only to twist and turn and head in completely the opposite direction. Landmarks are rare or non-existent. Path junctions can be a nightmare!
An example: Recently, I was following a PRoW footpath in the woods when the path on the ground began to diverge from the path shown on my Satmap handheld GPS. I continued following the path on the ground while keeping an eye on the Satmap so as to know where the path ought to be. When the undergrowth looked okay to tackle, I left the wrong path and used the Satmap to cross directly towards the line of the correct path, which I found. I was then able to continue on my way. I have never been lost in the woods, or followed the wrong path for long when carrying a GPS device.
I don't see how a paper map (and compass) would have helped in that situation.
The important point (I feel) is this: A GPS device shows me precisely where I am on the map. A paper map needs me to know exactly where I am on the map before it's of any use. In the woods without GPS, it's often extremely difficult for someone to know exactly where they are. In the woods, a required path can be just a few yards away through the trees and, while remaining invisible to the eye, be completely obvious on the GPS map.
(Having said all that, I do realise that many walkers prefer to stick to open hilly areas where navigation tends to be (in my experience) far easier.
)