Mapping out handy locations on bushwalk.com

[wildwalks]

Come on tastrax that seems a bit rough.
Many bushwalker use guidebooks and tracknotes. It is not uncommon for these to mention where you can get water, where there is good camping, cliffs and slippery screes to be careful of.
This seems to be to be simply a way of sharing this kind on of information in geographic way rather then as words on a page.
This is not desiring handholding - just suggesting that formation can be create, share and used in a new and maybe even better??? way.

Matt

[stepbystep]

...rather than taking the time to discover the environment on its own terms.

Exactly! It's the surprises that make the walk. Every time. Some people don't seem to get it though.

So Zone-5 perhaps you should state a list of the type of stuff you want, water sources, hazards, caches, viewpoints etc etc then apply it to a walk you've done to show us what you mean.

Personally, I'll take a bit of mystery and discovery over watching my device for stunning view in 3-2-1...Totally with doogs and the other elitists on this one I'm afraid.

[frenchy_84]

No, you're just another forum bully with 'delusions of grandeur'..

Is everyone who doesnt agree with your idea going to be labelled a bully or some other witty label?

I dont like the idea so label me as you see fit.
I struggle to see the point. Using Tassie as an example, there would only be three tracks where I feel that this published info would be ok and not increase damage thru numbers and thats because of their hardened tracks and infasturcture of the OT, Freycinet and Frenchmans. And then whats the point? all you are going to have on there is what is on guidebooks or what some map reading will tell you. and safety??? your going to be far better off with your eyes looking in front of you than looking at a GPS screen.

The pressure on the wilderness by increased exposure and therefore numbers is very real. Look at Lake Rhona, it is going close to being loved to death, the area behind the lake is a minefield of peoples waste and one could argue why dont PWS put in more infastructure to handle the people but then your losing the wilderness value of the area. I was also amazed that on this website people were discussing the Walls which has a quality hardened track to cope with the number of visitors and then one member gave a detailed description of pad in a neighboring valley which starts and ends at the same place as the proper track! Which will just result in further degradation in another valley as people become aware of an alternative access and want 'to escape the crowds'.

I also find it interesting that generally the people for this idea are from the north island and those that are against it are from the south. So perhaps if enough people think its a good enough idea then do it for the mainland just keep Tassie out of it.

[Nuts]

Oh I'm chuffed, I never thought I was important enough even in my youth to have grandeur, let alone continuing delusions of it. If you say so Zoneman. Your opinion of me is none of my business.

I write at length in an (often increasingly clumsy) attempt to be understood ... even by the care-less and ignorant.. not unarguably correct.

Anyhow... you have some fresh opinion to ponder. More importantly- others giving good points for Matt to consider. I like the idea of the proponents doing the work here, giving examples?

[tastrax]

Come on tastrax that seems a bit rough.
Many bushwalker use guidebooks and tracknotes. It is not uncommon for these to mention where you can get water, where there is good camping, cliffs and slippery screes to be careful of.
This seems to be to be simply a way of sharing this kind on of information in geographic way rather then as words on a page.
This is not desiring handholding - just suggesting that formation can be create, share and used in a new and maybe even better??? way.

Matt

But why the duplication? - its on maps, its in guidebooks, it could be on OSM if folks wanted to share it with the world via gps. There are also a myriad of sites on the web that share common interest points, track logs etc etc etc. I personally feel that the more we create these snippets for people the less they actually get out and smell the roses, take in the views and be at one with nature. The expectation builds that EVERY piece of information they require should be at their fingertips when they are out there.

Next thing you know there will be sounds going off in the bush as a proximity alarm goes off as you go near a cliff, a babbling brook sound as you get near a creek, a WOW as you get to a lookout, a chirp chirp as you get to a birds nest......

Chuck it all away and use your senses.

[wildwalks]

But why the duplication? - its on maps, its in guidebooks,

We got rid of scroll and stone tablets because there where better ways to record stuff. For some people this maybe a more convenient way of looking at the information.

I personally feel that the more we create these snippets for people the less they actually get out and smell the roses, take in the views and be at one with nature. The expectation builds that EVERY piece of information they require should be at their fingertips when they are out there.

Maybe - I am sure that is true for some people. But not everyone is an experienced bushwalker, nor do they spend a lot of time bushwalking. Some people want see images and get a sense of a walk before they go on the walk because they will only do 1 or two a year so they want to choose one that best suits them. Some people are scared of heights and been able to see that there is a swing bridge and a photo help them decide if that is something they can do.

Next thing you know there will be sounds going off in the bush as a proximity alarm goes off as you go near a cliff, a babbling brook sound as you get near a creek, a WOW as you get to a lookout, a chirp chirp as you get to a birds nest......

really?? I am sure people said the same thing with guide books that people would be to busy reading every word in the book that they would forget to look and trip over a rock not mentioned in the book.

Chuck it all away and use your senses.

Great to encourage people to use their senses. People come to bushwalking from very different backgrounds and participate fro different reasons.
If we chuck it all away I assume you also mean topomaps, tents, sleeping bags, boots. I mean people who walk with shoes are just not using all their senses, people who sleep with a sleeping bag are just missing feeling close to nature.
Is placing handing locations on a map really likely to cause people to implode like this??
Since art galleries started providing audio guides to their collections have people stopped looking at the art? - is it possible that visitors are now getting new information that gives them better insight so they now see the art more clearly?

Matt

[tastrax]

You forgot about OSM (Open Street Mapping) - the possibility is there for folks to add most of the attributes desired at that one global location.

[doogs]

Many bushwalker use guidebooks and tracknotes. It is not uncommon for these to mention where you can get water, where there is good camping, cliffs and slippery screes to be careful of.
This seems to be to be simply a way of sharing this kind on of information in geographic way rather then as words on a page.
This is not desiring handholding - just suggesting that formation can be create, share and used in a new and maybe even better??? way.

Matt

..and (in Tasmania) these guidebook authors have listened to to the policies put in place by the land management team at the Parks and Wildlife service leaving any notes on remote areas deliberately vague but with enough information to assist someone on whether that trip would suit them. When Nik started this forum as a Tasmanian only bushwalking site he put in place rule number 24 which again follows these P&W policies, this rule still stands out to me as the most important one. But now you would like to disregard these for the possible expansion of your online bushwalking presence??

[perfectlydark]

I hope none of you ever got notes out of books or from fellow walkers..zones proposal is a digital version of this stuff (you realise we live in a digital age I presume?)

[neilmny]

Many bushwalker use guidebooks and tracknotes. It is not uncommon for these to mention where you can get water, where there is good camping, cliffs and slippery screes to be careful of.
This seems to be to be simply a way of sharing this kind on of information in geographic way rather then as words on a page.
This is not desiring handholding - just suggesting that formation can be create, share and used in a new and maybe even better??? way.

Matt

..and (in Tasmania) these guidebook authors have listened to to the policies put in place by the land management team at the Parks and Wildlife service leaving any notes on remote areas deliberately vague but with enough information to assist someone on whether that trip would suit them. When Nik started this forum as a Tasmanian only bushwalking site he put in place rule number 24 which again follows these P&W policies, this rule still stands out to me as the most important one. But now you would like to disregard these for the possible expansion of your online bushwalking presence??

Where has anyone said they'd like to disregard rule 24.
Jeez you elite guys in Tassie are precious lot.
The idea was just a some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water (this is important on the mainland even in Vic.).
You may find as you puddle around in mud 12 months of the year to find that doesn't happen on the north island.
How the hell this will damage Tassies precious bush is beyond me.

With regard to your concerns, what amazes me is it seems you give your little elite group permission to go to these places but no one else is allowed.
Do your own feet and presence not damage this precious ground? Very hipocritical to demand that no one else find out about let alone go to these places
but evidently you go there to check up it seems regularly as shown by your "informed" comments on the damage done.

[perfectlydark]

Spot on

[doogs]

And once again another uneducated reply, from no doubt a city dwelling mainlander who is clearly not in touch with nature. Who's probably thinking National Parks are set aside for their pleasure and past times, helping to cleanse themselves of their city life through the 'wilderness values' they gain from visiting the 'bush'. These areas are in fact set aside for the wilderness not you lot. Simple. Fact. Understand?? The land managers of National Parks are in reality representatives of these areas, as they can't speak for themselves, whose job it is to preserve them from as minimal outside interference. So if they saw fit the managers could easily shut off whole areas if they thought that human influences in an area were becoming detrimental to the ecosystems within that National Park.
Most of my opinions on the subject come from studies at University on this and similar subjects; Tastrax as he mentioned earlier in the thread, was part of land management team at Parks and Wildlife; and Nuts through his vocation has to have an extremely in depth knowledge of the Parks and Wildlife policies. But hey let's all just disregard all this knowledge on the topic and call us elitist.

[perfectlydark]

So personal judgements and attacks as you have made aside, so areas that are not closed off (ie free to access by anyone) should still only be for special people like yourself. Noone else has any right to be there. That seems like your argument doogs?

[neilmny]

Doogs,
I am waiting to be educated by the elite as to how some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment, you may find it hard to believe that there are other places around other than Tasmanias delicate wilderness.
Secondly I would like to be educated on how it is OK for the elite to go to these fragile precious wilderness places and how your/their footsteps don't cause any harm to those places.

Oh and calling me a city dwelling mainlander is hardly offensive. You know nothing about me in that respect only my opinion of the tripe you guys a dealing up.

[stepbystep]

So personal judgements and attacks as you have made aside, so areas that are not closed off (ie free to access by anyone) should still only be for special people like yourself. Noone else has any right to be there. That seems like your argument doogs?

That's a very strange assumption of doogs comments.

I've seen several personal comments aimed at doogs 'precious' 'elitist' 'bully' - all because he chooses to defend the wilderness values of an area. To articulate the fact he cares more about the natural values \ than the ease of access to an area to people. I'm with him on this absolutely.

You have translated these comments into an assumption that he believes no-one should go there. I don't see it like this at all. I've got no major problem with zone's premise which is why I have invited him(?) to set up an example. I do have a major problem if this information was publicly made for off track and sensitive areas. If you don't spend the time doing the research into planning a walk in remote wilderness areas THEN you shouldn't be there. Spend the time, respect the values and enjoy. I'm happy to share my knowledge of such things with those interested but I'm not going to post detailed notes on the web for all and sundry.

[perfectlydark]

Ah isnt having this information available to be researched then allow you to research so you can..go there? Thats a pretty lame argument stepbystep. How exactly does one.do research if no resources are available? Maybe they should just head out and figure out themselves (which will probably cause more damage and risk than otherwise).
As for doogs comments, city.dweller, etc..yeah hardly offensive.
A lot of members on this site have a sick disease believing themselves to be superior to newer people in the hobby. You wonder why clubs fail to attract new members? Its all about attitude mate. And rather than a helpful community this is becoming a 'im better than you, you shouldnt be allowed there only I am' kind of attitude. Bit my tongue long enough

[frenchy_84]

Doogs,
I am waiting to be educated by the elite as to how some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment.

You dont think that posting a photo on the internet of an amazing landscape with a description of follow the pad... wont increase numbers in the area and therefor change the pad in to well worn rut or quagmire? Ive already given examples of where increase numbers have changed the wilderness values of an area but rather than focus on our reasoning you simplely call us elitest. We are not saying dont go there it only for us, what we are saying is dont splash it over the internet for it to become the next OT or Milford etc when there is no infastructure to handle it. If you want your hand held by a GPS do it on the OT and not in areas which dont have hardened tracks

[neilmny]

I repeat - I am waiting to be educated as to how some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment.
No one who disagrees with you guys is suggesting unfettered delivery of information on fragile places what we are suggesting is some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water anywhere not the *&%$#! Tasmanian wilderness.

Take your blinkers of fellas and read all the post/s not just the words that you don't like!
Is this some kind of joke I've gotten caught up in.

[doogs]

I repeat - I am waiting to be educated as to how some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment.
No one who disagrees with you guys is suggesting unfettered delivery of information on fragile places what we are suggesting is some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water anywhere not the *&%$#! Tasmanian wilderness.

Take your blinkers of fellas and read all the post/s not just the words that you don't like!
Is this some kind of joke I've gotten caught up in.

Try clicking on the link that Tastrax provided earlier in the thread to a Parks and Wildlife report on the subject. It may educate you on the subject to read the information given to you...

[stepbystep]

@perfectlydark you do the research by asking polite and friendly questions of more experienced walkers, just like I did when I started. I encourage new walkers and I encourage them to get off the beaten path. I do however impart my passion for caring for the environment they visit. In return I make new friends and get a warm fuzzy feeling for helping someone.

@nielmny take a cpl deep breaths and a lie down, after you do that perhaps you want to read the whole post.

I will state for the record my comments are for ot and sensitive areas. The information for well tracked areas is already available afaik, but hey knock yourselves out.

[Nuts]

Even just off the OLT, even the first day, there are some special places. The state of these are testament to having been cared for by locals for generations, some consideration taken in passing on their location. Simply 'Care', not necessarily any overriding entitlement.

Contrast this to any given mapped side track, the damage that Has happened and needed funding and ongoing maintenance to just to try to limit, places that have been discussed on here.. and it is obvious what web access has done.

I'd vote to hold on to the way things are. Not without resignation that change is inevitable, I would be interested in a 'solution'. I just can't see anything positive in handing the reins from locals (everywhere) and land managers to (seemingly) butt-puckered technophiles

[perfectlydark]

Mate that would be good but you get no help here anymore. Polite and friendly often results in condescending and discouraging.

[Nuts]

some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment.

Points of interest assumes you know the consequences of placing that point.
Alerts to hazards? Part of the learning process taken away?
Reliable water? Take that as gospel?

[neilmny]

some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment.

Points of interest assumes you know the consequences of placing that point.
Alerts to hazards? Part of the learning process taken away?
Reliable water? Take that as gospel?

You are assuming anyone other than the elite does know the consequences.
Learning process........so what, some people just want to get out there.
Reliable water.....hence the term reliable water....there are places with reliable water.

The reference to tastrax "educational link".........there are other places besides Tasmania there is a whole world out there guys.

[stepbystep]

Mate that would be good but you get no help here anymore. Polite and friendly often results in condescending and discouraging.

I regularly receive pm's from ppl requesting info and I help. I've also received generous support and made friends and acquaintances via this process. One nsw member recently invited me to the big island too. Very nice of them. Reciprocity will flow. Some info I will pass on publicly some not. If I don't like someone's attitude I won't help, simple, mate.

[Nuts]

You are assuming anyone other than the elite does know the consequences.
Learning process........so what, some people just want to get out there.
Reliable water.....hence the term reliable water....there are places with reliable water.

The reference to tastrax "educational link".........there are other places besides Tasmania there is a whole world out there guys.

No, sadly, tediously, we live in a world where systems are placed to suit the lowest common denominator (so to speak), we all pay the price. You may very well be capable of judging what points to give away and what could be a 'reliable' water source. I'd imagine some others whacking GPS points up simply in google eyed amazement at their new toy- it's so easy!

Iv'e acknowledged, as have some others that it could be a different level of concern on the mainland. If nobody will speak against it then that is what you'll get! I can only relate this to our tracks and the most popular ones at that. Most people are fine but it's not hard to see how it wouldn't take many at all to grandstand their version of what is acceptable if it means simply copying a set of co-ordinates. More likely instant uploads to sites such as this.. with even less need to stop and consider the consequences.

matt has a historic, progressive opportunity- to either work this out or say no... the issue has been lurking a lot longer than this particular thread. If it's too hard to get across the subtle concerns of a change and no input to resolve how such info can be regulated (for credibility or consequences) then yep, 'just not in Tassie' is fine by me.

[neilmny]

You are assuming anyone other than the elite does know the consequences.
Learning process........so what, some people just want to get out there.
Reliable water.....hence the term reliable water....there are places with reliable water.

The reference to tastrax "educational link".........there are other places besides Tasmania there is a whole world out there guys.

No, sadly, tediously, we live in a world where systems are placed to suit the lowest common denominator (so to speak), we all pay the price. You may very well be capable of judging what points to give away and what could be a 'reliable' water source. I'd imagine some others whacking GPS points up simply in google eyed amazement at their new toy- it's so easy!

Iv'e acknowledged, as have some others that it could be a different level of concern on the mainland. If nobody will speak against it then that is what you'll get! I can only relate this to our tracks and the most popular ones at that. Most people are fine but it's not hard to see how it wouldn't take many at all to grandstand their version of what is acceptable if it means simply copying a set of co-ordinates. More likely instant uploads to sites such as this.. with even less need to stop and consider the consequences.

matt has a historic, progressive opportunity- to either work this out or say no... the issue has been lurking a lot longer than this particular thread. If it's too hard to get across the subtle concerns of a change and no input to resolve how such info can be regulated (for credibility or consequences) then yep, 'just not in Tassie' is fine by me.

I couldn't agree more with all of this Nuts.

[tastrax]

The reference to tastrax "educational link".........there are other places besides Tasmania there is a whole world out there guys.

...and I challenge you to find a track monitoring program anywhere in the world that has been running as long as the one in Tasmania.

Lets start with your own state....

[wildwalks]

I'd vote to hold on to the way things are. Not without resignation that change is inevitable, I would be interested in a 'solution'. I just can't see anything positive in handing the reins from locals (everywhere) and land managers to (seemingly) butt-puckered technophiles

I too wish things could stay they way they are, better still, how they once where. I agree that the change has started. here, we are bouncing some potential solutions that may help address this issue, some suggestions may make it worse - hence the reason for the discussion.

For some reason Doogs thinks I am wanting to burn rule 24, but I suspect it is clear to most that I am looking at ways that we can help make rule 24 stand up taller, and to have a larger impact outside bushwalk.com.
Parks services no longer have the control they once did over the publishing of information. Locals certainly have no real say in what currently gets published online. With services like OSM, people plot tracks and waypoints with little understanding of their potential impacts.

I think there are a few issues we are discussing here.
1) Is it helpful to share some information with the wider community about points along some bushwalks?
2) Is there a way we can help share helpful information whilst still protecting sensitive places?
3) Can we help the wider community better understand the issue to prevent/reduce the amount of specific information published about sensitive areas?
4) As bushwalkers, how does the way we discuss our trips and our knowledge impact others people's desire to protect wild places? (when was the last time you heard a bushwalker say 'I had this great trip planned but decided to not go because the nature of the environment meant it was impossible for me to leave no trace'.?)

When I mention the wider community I am not just thinking about me and like minded keen walkers. The majority of people who are bushwalking on any particular day are people with little experience bushwalking and would generally not call themselves bushwalkers. Infact there was a day that every single one of us was one of these people.
National Parks are not set aside for our recreation, but to protect biodiversity, landscapes and arguable much more. We also live in a democracy in which legislation is changed based on the will of the people. If national parks are perceived as playgrounds for a few elite bushwalkers, then why would the community want to pay taxes to protect them? Are there enough people who appreciate the ideal of national parks to keep them protected?

I wish to encourage our community to learn to love these natural places - otherwise who is going to bother to meet with their local member or vote for to protect wild places. I am not saying that all people need to go into wilderness area or into sensitive areas, but I am suggesting the more people in our community who experience nature on a bushwalk (eg one of the 60 great short walks in Tassy) then the more people will be willing to protect them. In a perfect world the whole community would want to see parks and wildplaces protected and free of human interference. But, we live in a broken world and a democratic society. If the community do not see 'value' in wild places then why would they vote to protect them? Legislation that protects these places are fragile and can be changed if the Government gets the support. There may be otherways to inspire people to protect these places, but I know no better way then helping people build a relationship with a nature place.

In NSW part of our community was outraged that the Government created a new law to allow recreational hunting in NSW National Parks. It was only because of a bunch of people who loved these places applied pressure to the government that saw the policy changed. It only takes one generation to prefer parking lots then wilderness for it to be bulldozed. Far from me to suggest this one idea has the potential to protect national parks for all eternity. Lets remember though that National Parks are also a fairly new idea that is currently held in legislation. The legislation will change and it us up to our community to decide how it will be changed.

I am not saying it is easy, Infact the reason it is worth debating is because it us hard. We may not find a solution in this debate - but if we do - then great.
Perhaps the best thing we can do is nothing, but if we don't try to respectfully listen to each other, share some ideas and try to find a solution - then it is possible we are doing more damage to the places we love by not allowing creative ideas to develop.

Matt

[perfectlydark]

Matt that is perfectly written.
Step -apologies I was not inferring yourself to be unhelpful, just an atmosphere I often see in many threads (again not yourself). I thought this site was a 'virtual' spot for enthusiasts to chat and share info politly, this is not always the case though and I have seen members hounded off for daring to have different view points than "the establishment".
My rants over I hope matt makes a call that is in the best interests of both the environment and also enthusiasts (if noone took interest the govt would be more than happy to flog the lot off for farmland and shopping centres)