RNP - Kangaroo Creek

[shankspony]

So I had a bit of a fail today. I was hoping to do a loop walk out of Waterfall: down Kangeroo Creek to Karloo Pool, some meandering, back on Uloola Track. I only got about 3km down Kangeroo Creek track, to the waterhole, and then couldn't find a track beyond that.

Kangaroo Creek Track doesn't show at all on the normal toppo map, but it's on OSM. Actually looking closer (now i'm home and have a zoom facility!) I see that the track probably crosses the creek below the water hole (north of the water hole), but I did spend about 40min bushbashing over wet rocks around there and found nothing, and wasn't really in the mood for more bashing today.

Anyway my question is - does this track exist? Any top tips? If it does, is it straightforward thereafter, or is it a bit grown over these days? Thanks

[Warin]

I have had 2 tracks in OSM that I could not find. Until I found the other ends of them and walked back to the bits I could not see ... 1 is still very over grown on that end and I dough anyone could see it unless they had used it before. The other I have now walked a few times and is more visible due to the increased traffic.
Good Luck .. it is possible that the track does not exist. But I'd investigate further than just looking at one end.

[DaveNoble]

Yes - there is a track all the way - more or less, but not a good one, and you do lose it at times. Mainly on the true right. I wrote up the walk on my blog - see - http://www.david-noble.net/blog/?p=18457

[shankspony]

Thanks both for replying. Dave - your blog tells me everything I need to know! Shame I didn't look for it before I set off.
I'm keen to give it another try now - it looks good. But next time will think of it more as an explore than a straightforward path, and allow more time than I thought originally to get through the 'lost track' sections.

[johnw]

Yes Dave's blog report nails it. From memory of my one complete traverse of it some years ago now. Generally stay on the true right is good advice. My last attempt a couple of years back I left late and it was a hot day, so dallied swimming at the waterhole. I had planned to go through to Karloo Pools. I did continue some way but the track had become quite a bit scrubbier since my earlier visit, so I abandoned the idea thinking I'd run out of light. I am planning to revisit and complete it again at some point, with better time management.

The waterhole was lovely on my last visit:


Dave - If you haven't gotten around to the section you mention in your blog report from Karloo to Audley, I have done it as far as the Engadine track. From Karloo Pools to Karloo Spur is a good track (true left). From that point it is initially easy - then beyond that is doable but becomes quite scrubby and awkward after the dogleg east of Yaala Brook. That was in 2009, so conditions may be different now. Given your experience I doubt it would be a major challenge.

[LachlanB]

The waterfall in your photo John is an absolutely fantastic spot... One of my favourite places that I've visited in the Royal NP.

Well, unlike you guys, when I walked down the creek around three years back, I don't recall much of a track after the nice waterhole. I stayed on the true right most of the way, but nothing except the very occasional bit of tape. But plenty of scrub and flood debris to fight my way through! Just goes to show the power of some of these seemingly small watercourses when you get a flood going down them...

[GPSGuided]

Yep, got stumped at the water hole a few years ago too and didn't have the confidence to push through. So similar to other tracks that the NP does not promote or maintain, just gradually getting overgrown and harder to access. Maybe it'll open up again with the next fire in the area.

[shankspony]

Nice pics Guided and JohnW! The pool was a little murky on Saturday, and no water over the falls, but still a lovely spot, and a nice feel along the creek too. Yeah, shame it's not maintained. More loop options anywhere are always welcome in my book. I was wondering whether it's not maintained because there are some aboriginal sites along the way, but don't tell me that - i'll find out for myself.....

[tom_brennan]

Perhaps it should be removed from OSM. It's more of a route than a track.

[Warin]

Yes - there is a track all the way - more or less, but not a good one, and you do lose it at times.

Perhaps it should be removed from OSM. It's more of a route than a track.

I'd tend to keep it in .. if there is some visibility to it. The more people that use it .. the more visible it becomes .. by having it in OSM there is an encouragement to use it. Remove it from OSM and the track may well disappear from lack of use. Catch 22 .. when should a track be removed? Possibly it could be marked disused as a first stage of its degradation.

[GPSGuided]

I'd tend to keep it in .. if there is some visibility to it. The more people that use it .. the more visible it becomes .. by having it in OSM there is an encouragement to use it. Remove it from OSM and the track may well disappear from lack of use. Catch 22 .. when should a track be removed? Possibly it could be marked disused as a first stage of its degradation.

Removing these historic and less used tracks is akin to how the government mapping authorities remove bush tracks, often for convenience and for their particular audience. Keeping these historic but less known tracks on OSM is one of the advantages of that OSM dataset. It allows ideas and give people the option to explore less known routes. Even when overgrown, those recorded tracks can provide guidance to anyone who cares to explore. So I'd also prefer they be preserved.

[ribuck]

OSM allows a track to be tagged for visibility (including "visibility=terrible"), so there's no reason to remove a useful negotiable route from OSM.

Not all map apps display OSM tracks and negotiable routes differently (OruxMaps does), but that's a problem with the app rather than with the OSM data.

The OSM policy has always been to capture the data, then let the app designer worry about how/whether to render it for display.

[Warin]

I'd tend to keep it in .. if there is some visibility to it. The more people that use it .. the more visible it becomes .. by having it in OSM there is an encouragement to use it. Remove it from OSM and the track may well disappear from lack of use. Catch 22 .. when should a track be removed? Possibly it could be marked disused as a first stage of its degradation.

Removing these historic and less used tracks is akin to how the government mapping authorities remove bush tracks, often for convenience and for their particular audience. Keeping these historic but less known tracks on OSM is one of the advantages of that OSM dataset. It allows ideas and give people the option to explore less known routes. Even when overgrown, those recorded tracks can provide guidance to anyone who cares to explore. So I'd also prefer they be preserved.

If something is no longer there then it should not be in OSM.
If ther is a remnat of it then then taht should be in OSM.
However .. it should be in OHM!!! Even if it is now gone.
OHM is basically OSM but for historic things .. they do require a start date tag .. and possibly an end date tag (if it has ceased to exist).
But anything you could have been put into OSM can go into OHM to preserve the history.
So the vehicle ferry that went across Sydney harbour before the harbour bridge was finished should be there. And so on.

[tom_brennan]

Removing these historic and less used tracks is akin to how the government mapping authorities remove bush tracks, often for convenience and for their particular audience.

I don't disagree in general, but has this particular track ever been more than a vague footpad? Is it really a historic track? I walked it in about 2010 and it was just a vague pad then too.

[johnw]

Removing these historic and less used tracks is akin to how the government mapping authorities remove bush tracks, often for convenience and for their particular audience.

I don't disagree in general, but has this particular track ever been more than a vague footpad? Is it really a historic track? I walked it in about 2010 and it was just a vague pad then too.

I agree, and support the concept of preserving historic tracks. But as far as I'm aware this has always been described as a negotiable route - no track as such. I suspect the "track" is mainly just an impact pad, north to the waterhole. Beyond that is less traveled and has always been vague. Likely a combination of flooding, veg growth and minimal traffic in more recent years has obscured it further. I'm not aware that NPWS has ever maintained a track there - happy to be proven wrong. Anyway enjoy it for what it is.

[LachlanB]

I think that these routes should be maintained in datasets like OSM. It opens opportunities to people that they would not have otherwise recognised. For instance, I wouldn't have even thought of going down Kangaroo Creek, if I hadn't seen a map of the Western RNP, and noticed that 'hey, there's a track there that I don't recognise!'

But I think the key is the trail/track/route difference. Trail for something continuous and of a standard that you could (or with very little modification could) drive a vehicle along it. Track for a continuous and clear footpad. Route as the description of everything else less clear- decayed or overgrown footpads, or simply negotiable but irregularly used lines through rough country. I would be happy describing Kangaroo Creek as a route, but less so a track.

The problem with a 'Historic Maps' option is that it doesn't necessarily allow for how dynamic some tracks are. They can come and go as popularity waxes and wanes and then waxes again. I don't think we need restrict ourselves with what the 'offical' tracks are- in most places (and for most commenters on here), these are only the bones of the walking network, and there are so many other options beyond them.

[tom_brennan]

I think that these routes should be maintained in datasets like OSM. It opens opportunities to people that they would not have otherwise recognised. For instance, I wouldn't have even thought of going down Kangaroo Creek, if I hadn't seen a map of the Western RNP, and noticed that 'hey, there's a track there that I don't recognise!'

But I think the key is the trail/track/route difference. Trail for something continuous and of a standard that you could (or with very little modification could) drive a vehicle along it. Track for a continuous and clear footpad. Route as the description of everything else less clear- decayed or overgrown footpads, or simply negotiable but irregularly used lines through rough country. I would be happy describing Kangaroo Creek as a route, but less so a track.

I don't think routes without tracks should be maintained in OSM. I've descended literally hundreds of creeks, and walked across all sorts of untracked country, so I have hundreds of negotiable routes. But they should not be added to OSM. OSM is about mapping what's on the ground.

As far as exploring goes, there are lots of avenues for looking for opportunities. Maps, other people's trip reports, aerial photos. You don't need much. Too much info takes some of the mystery out of it.

Kangaroo Creek is in a grey area. There is a pad of sorts, so there is some justification for mapping. Is it formed enough to leave in OSM? Dunno.

[wildwanderer]

I don't think routes without tracks should be maintained in OSM. I've descended literally hundreds of creeks, and walked across all sorts of untracked country, so I have hundreds of negotiable routes. But they should not be added to OSM. OSM is about mapping what's on the ground.

Kangaroo Creek is in a grey area. There is a pad of sorts, so there is some justification for mapping. Is it formed enough to leave in OSM? Dunno.

OSM is a good way for people to find potential routes for walking and a way to keep routes through scrub open. I havent walked this route yet but my understanding is that the surounding landscape is fairly scrubby. Without the route/pad listed in OSM most likely this area would not be visited except by more hardcore types and walkers would be forced to do a one way and return trip along the Uloola trail. As it is there is a nice loop and it should be preserved IMO.

There is plenty of detail in OSM on the condition of the route. OSM (oruxmaps screenshot below) shows its clear up until the waterhole and then the track/pad becomes more overgrown/more challenging to find as indicated by the dotted lines. (and real life reports indicate the same)

I often look for tracks/routes in OSM when planning solo day walks, its a great way to discover more of the country with less risk of finding the planned route full of scrub.

Kangaroo Creek OSM map (oruxmaps)

[GPSGuided]

OSM allows a track to be tagged for visibility (including "visibility=terrible"), so there's no reason to remove a useful negotiable route from OSM.

Well pointed out.

Fact is, OSM data are entered and removed by people on an individual basis, often through subjective interpretation. There's also been no shortage of cases where opposing individuals would add and remove data in cycles. For me, it's far more valuable to the community to apply these suggested tags and comment, then let the individual users decide how they want to use it. I also respect the time of other users who entered the dataset than evaporate them with a single 'delete' click. Spend the time and add to the dataset.

[LachlanB]

I think that these routes should be maintained in datasets like OSM. It opens opportunities to people that they would not have otherwise recognised. For instance, I wouldn't have even thought of going down Kangaroo Creek, if I hadn't seen a map of the Western RNP, and noticed that 'hey, there's a track there that I don't recognise!'

But I think the key is the trail/track/route difference. Trail for something continuous and of a standard that you could (or with very little modification could) drive a vehicle along it. Track for a continuous and clear footpad. Route as the description of everything else less clear- decayed or overgrown footpads, or simply negotiable but irregularly used lines through rough country. I would be happy describing Kangaroo Creek as a route, but less so a track.

I don't think routes without tracks should be maintained in OSM. I've descended literally hundreds of creeks, and walked across all sorts of untracked country, so I have hundreds of negotiable routes. But they should not be added to OSM. OSM is about mapping what's on the ground.

As far as exploring goes, there are lots of avenues for looking for opportunities. Maps, other people's trip reports, aerial photos. You don't need much. Too much info takes some of the mystery out of it.

Kangaroo Creek is in a grey area. There is a pad of sorts, so there is some justification for mapping. Is it formed enough to leave in OSM? Dunno.

Like so many things, it's open to interpretation and flexibility. I would agree with you, that because someone could walk up it, doesn't make it a route. If we did that, basically every ridge and creek would be a route. But I did say irregularly used- a route has to have some form of human agency about it to differentiate it from standard off track walking where (almost) anything goes (eventually).

I think Bungonia is a good example of this: you have the known, formed tracks down to the river level in the Red, White and Blue Tracks. But then you have the Bee Box 'Track', which has been walked in the past; but there's no sign of it on the ground except at the very bottom and top. I would call it a route. Camp Oven Spur could be called a route in the sense that it is a way to get from one interesting place to another. But it's very infrequently used, and there's no footpad at all (afaik), so I wouldn't call it a route myself. It's just a ridge I could go for a walk off-track on. However, it's apparently possible (I've never done it myself) to get from Adam's Lookout to the big bend in Bungonia Creek without ropes. There aren't many other places in this area where this is possible, so even though there isn't a footpad and it isn't used much at all, I'd still call it a route, as it's one of the few non-technical ways through an area.

[Mattystein]

Just to add to this thread, I recently completed the Kangaroo Creek track with a few friends on the 8th Sep 2018. We started at Waterfall and ended at Engadine. There were many places we lost the track, but generally found it again after a bit of bush-bashing. We crossed the creek a couple of times to follow the trail, but generally sticking to the East side of the creek was the go. It was definitely tough/slow going, but the spots where it opened up were really lovely. All up it took us about 3 hours, which was very long for the distance.

For navigation I used a route I made using Caltopo, simply added a line and snapped it to the OSM trail. Then followed it on my phone using the Backcountry Navigator app.

Anyway, I tracked my walk as well, and have added the GPX file here if that helps anyone.

[puredingo]

Just to add to this thread, I recently completed the Kangaroo Creek track with a few friends on the 8th Sep 2018. We started at Waterfall and ended at Engadine. There were many places we lost the track, but generally found it again after a bit of bush-bashing. We crossed the creek a couple of times to follow the trail, but generally sticking to the East side of the creek was the go. It was definitely tough/slow going, but the spots where it opened up were really lovely. All up it took us about 3 hours, which was very long for the distance.

For navigation I used a route I made using Caltopo, simply added a line and snapped it to the OSM trail. Then followed it on my phone using the Backcountry Navigator app.

Anyway, I tracked my walk as well, and have added the GPX file here if that helps anyone.

My God!!! I'm a dinosaur...

I understood "track" "creek" and "Engadine" then it was all greek?

[GPSGuided]

Just to add to this thread, I recently completed the Kangaroo Creek track with a few friends on the 8th Sep 2018. We started at Waterfall and ended at Engadine. There were many places we lost the track, but generally found it again after a bit of bush-bashing. We crossed the creek a couple of times to follow the trail, but generally sticking to the East side of the creek was the go. It was definitely tough/slow going, but the spots where it opened up were really lovely. All up it took us about 3 hours, which was very long for the distance.

Anyway, I tracked my walk as well, and have added the GPX file here if that helps anyone.

That's great Matty!

Had a compare to the OSM track, your GPX seemed to align with what's in the database reasonably closely, so it's definitely doable. Out of curiosity, did you try to follow OSM's track along the way or did you go with what you saw along the way in determining the track? Either way with this confirmation, I'm sure there'll be a few of us who'll follow your footsteps in coming months.

[ribuck]

... Caltopo ... snapped it to the OSM trail ... followed it on my phone ...Backcountry Navigator app ... tracked my walk ... added the GPX file ...

My God!!! I'm a dinosaur...

I understood "track" "creek" and "Engadine" then it was all greek?

Ignorance is bliss, puredingo. If you master these greek phrases, it changes your bushwalking experience forever, and you can never go back.

So think very carefully before doing it!

[GPSGuided]

Ignorance is bliss, puredingo. If you master these greek phrases, it changes your bushwalking experience forever, and you can never go back.

So think very carefully before doing it!

Fear of the unknown...

[Mattystein]

Out of curiosity, did you try to follow OSM's track along the way or did you go with what you saw along the way in determining the track?

Hmmmm, good question. Other than the initial section which was easy to follow albeit a little overgrown, we generally were able to follow what we thought was a very old trail that had gone barely used for quite some time. However, on a number of occasions we had lost it completely and when this happened I did check the OSM trail on my phone. When I checked there were a couple of times I noticed it crossed the creek which helped us double back and find the "trail" again on the other side. So yes, I did find the OSM trail pretty accurate or at least a pretty solid guide for when we lost the trail. The good thing is, as long as you stick to the creek you'll be fine, mainly on the east side, but be ready to cross it if you lose the trail. And sometimes you just bushwhack for a bit until you see signs of an old trail again.

Best of luck.

[Mark F]

... Caltopo ... snapped it to the OSM trail ... followed it on my phone ...Backcountry Navigator app ... tracked my walk ... added the GPX file ...

My God!!! I'm a dinosaur...

I understood "track" "creek" and "Engadine" then it was all greek?

Ignorance is bliss, puredingo. If you master these greek phrases, it changes your bushwalking experience forever, and you can never go back.

So think very carefully before doing it!

Perhaps Geek rather than Greek?

[Mattystein]

My God!!! I'm a dinosaur...

I understood "track" "creek" and "Engadine" then it was all greek?

Ignorance is bliss, puredingo. If you master these greek phrases, it changes your bushwalking experience forever, and you can never go back.

So think very carefully before doing it!

Perhaps Geek rather than Greek?

I very much enjoy planning my routes, checking elevation gains/losses, and various other things. While walking I'm present in the moment and enjoying my surroundings, unless I've lost that darn trail that was meant to be there, so I will check my map on my phone.

I definitely can't claim not to be a geek with my Computer Science background , but everyone needs to hike their own hike. I've just finished the Great North Walk end to end in 11 days, and relaxed at Colo Meroo during the long weekend, so hopefully it makes up for the geekiness a bit

[GPSGuided]

Hmmmm, good question. Other than the initial section which was easy to follow albeit a little overgrown, we generally were able to follow what we thought was a very old trail that had gone barely used for quite some time. However, on a number of occasions we had lost it completely and when this happened I did check the OSM trail on my phone. When I checked there were a couple of times I noticed it crossed the creek which helped us double back and find the "trail" again on the other side. So yes, I did find the OSM trail pretty accurate or at least a pretty solid guide for when we lost the trail. The good thing is, as long as you stick to the creek you'll be fine, mainly on the east side, but be ready to cross it if you lose the trail. And sometimes you just bushwhack for a bit until you see signs of an old trail again.

Excellent feedback and validates the OSM record.