Mapping out handy locations on bushwalk.com

[Nuts]

Maybe it's easier to understand the concern from a Tassie perspective with so many fragile areas (given enough traffic)?
When I saw that classic poster of Lk Oberon i just had to visit, maybe a photo is enough and i can see your point matt, to try to alter the status quo as a realistic alternative.

However:
You mention the Overland Track. This is probably a good example of 'what harm can it do'. I could probably give some examples of points that could be added to the map (or 'photo points') but then iv'e seen changes that have occurred from simple, innocent comments made on here (without even captioned photo's). I know some passionate land managers though I doubt even they could have the foresight to gauge impact. How can this be done by someone on a single walk or even with a number of visits? Iv'e walked this track a good number of times and have some knowledge of the process of impact but the changes that have occurred in my time around that track and with access I would have had only a vague chance of predicting.

So I don't really know who you would have help plan any BWA approach. It can't really be done area-wide (down here), maybe on the mainland away from alpine country, culturally or environmentally fragile places (or on the way to them)?

Transfer this to a more remote location, route or track with the access GPS has brought to the less experienced and locally we can only have the potential for increasing concentrated damage..? and perhaps danger if for example that water source (obviously previously un-mapped) isn't there as expected.. (probably more a mainland concern) It has taken no knowledge or backup plan that would have previously been necessary if nothing was plotted (as one example). There are some odd choices made even by mapping agencies let alone recreational walkers.

so... to take this to another level by giving such details as map co-ordinates, the short answer would be/was- No.. in voting style 'yes or no' choice.

Like others (phew) I have my doubts but would be in full support of a solution to this dilemma on a broad scale. In an ideal world we would poll every photo, better still have a moderator for each state with immense state-wide knowledge and time on their hands?

[doogs]

Hi Doogs
100% agree that NP are primarily set aside for nature sake not for our recreation. Your message seems to suggest that we should shut down bushwalk.com altogether more then suggest we should not build this map?. I don't think this map is proposing anything different to what we do now other then to effectively stick a post on a map rather then in pure text form. Agree that some areas should be 'out of bounds'. If the issues can't be fixed then we don't build it. But if we don't build it, then someone else is likely to and then we have no say/control over what is put up.
Matt

What I was trying to say is that off track areas shouldn't be cataloged for inexperienced bushwalkers to attempt to visit through this quasi-geocaching map thingy. There are many examples of pictures taken off track which have been shared on this site, including, or even especially, in Tasmania whose exact grid locations aren't given for someone to plug into a GPS. I am trying hard not to come across as elitist as I have visited some great wilderness ranges but I feel that if someone wants to visit a remote and beautiful off track location then they should have the relevant bushwalking experience and shouldn't need a GPS plot to find the location from a photo.
If you are going to include Tasmania in this map idea please stick to destinations on tracks marked on a map. I know that Google Earth or Maps have pictures from where ever but it would be nice to think as bushwalkers you would take the moral high ground and help to keep the wilderness as a wilderness!

[baeurabasher]

Hi Doogs
100% agree that NP are primarily set aside for nature sake not for our recreation. Your message seems to suggest that we should shut down bushwalk.com altogether more then suggest we should not build this map?. I don't think this map is proposing anything different to what we do now other then to effectively stick a post on a map rather then in pure text form. Agree that some areas should be 'out of bounds'. If the issues can't be fixed then we don't build it. But if we don't build it, then someone else is likely to and then we have no say/control over what is put up.
Matt

What I was trying to say is that off track areas shouldn't be cataloged for inexperienced bushwalkers to attempt to visit through this quasi-geocaching map thingy. There are many examples of pictures taken off track which have been shared on this site, including, or even especially, in Tasmania whose exact grid locations aren't given for someone to plug into a GPS. I am trying hard not to come across as elitist as I have visited some great wilderness ranges but I feel that if someone wants to visit a remote and beautiful off track location then they should have the relevant bushwalking experience and shouldn't need a GPS plot to find the location from a photo.
If you are going to include Tasmania in this map idea please stick to destinations on tracks marked on a map. I know that Google Earth or Maps have pictures from where ever but it would be nice to think as bushwalkers you would take the moral high ground and help to keep the wilderness as a wilderness!

+1


Very well said Doogs.
Didn't think I would find myself so passionate about this, I think you will find there are many bushwalkers in Tasmania that feel the same and would be horrified at the thought of this going ahead.

I see someone mentioned this site has been good over the years at keeping sensitive issues sensitive, let's not take steps backwards here and keep our wild places wild please.

[Zone-5]

...I am trying hard not to come across as elitist as I have visited some great wilderness ranges but I feel that if someone wants to visit a remote and beautiful off track location then they should have the relevant bushwalking experience and shouldn't need a GPS plot to find the location...

..shouldn't need a map or compass neither!


So what you've said here is that bushwalking as a whole be set aside as an exclusive private bragging club for an elite 'experienced' few with a humongous sense of entitlement to the active exclusion of all others deemed of lesser ilk!

In short, if others don't have the prerequisite club kudos 'permission' to be an official bush-walker; badge..
.. then take this you undeserved-cheater-faker-lazy GPS user blaggard!!!



...if this 'elitist sentiment' is a given here, then I'm only too glad to find this 'gem' here in only my second week!

pfffffffffffffff, it's totally pathetic and so un-Australian!

[doogs]

[quote="Zone-5]
pfffffffffffffff, it's totally pathetic and so un-Australian![/quote]
Um.. OK.. Maybe take a deep breath reread what I have written, think and then reply. Whilst you are at it maybe read the rules of the forum paying particular attention to Rule 24. The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife land usage policies also may be of interest too. But hey I don't make the rules so you are welcome to call me an elitist prick for poopooing your idea if it makes you feel better?

[baeurabasher]

[quote="Zone-5]
pfffffffffffffff, it's totally pathetic and so un-Australian![/quote]
Um.. OK.. Maybe take a deep breath reread what I have written, think and then reply. Whilst you are at it maybe read the rules of the forum paying particular attention to Rule 24. The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife land usage policies also may be of interest too. But hey I don't make the rules so you are welcome to call me an elitist prick for poopooing your idea if it makes you feel better?[/quote]

Yet I still agree.

Zone 5 have you been to Tasmania? Things are a bit different down here, as Doogs has said we have special practices in place within our N's and WHA's.

In fact i'd be interested in the legal side of geocaching within national parks/world heritage areas. It's a form of littering isnt it?

[Nuts]

Arggh

[taswegian]

Before proper maps of my favorite place existed, I did (exist).
That didn't stop me going there.
I did it because I loved the outdoors and found somewhere few people back then visited.
Lack of maps, GPS or Sextants won't stop those suitably skilled finding those special places we seem to be talking about.

When the Franklin River was 'saved' I was glad. Not because I could now go and visit for ever but knowing full well I'd most likely never visit but was happy that such a place existed.

I'm with Doogs on this.
These areas are here for the future and we have a responsibility to that.
Human pressure is increasing at a pace not seen before.
People MUST have information, they have a right to have it! That is what is portrayed on social websites, media etc. Just don't tread on my information though 'cos I don't like it, also filters through the maze.

What concerns me about some aspects of this conversation (and others on this site) is that it's the 'challenge' that is the important thing, and the 'achievement'. Not the outdoor experience and the enjoyment that comes with that, safe in the knowledge that my predecessors saw fit to do something about this or that precious place. Even that I could enjoy knowing it will be there for others long after I've gone.

Was wondering why not as I'm sure many others here would like to share some co-ords of beautiful spots they have found.

The broadness of that question has probably led to the debate that has ensured.
I agree on regularly used tracked areas there are sites known for their beauty and are 'places not to be missed.'
Given the nature of our weather, or the weather conditions that add extra pizzazz to the vista then we could miss knowing such a place existed and merely walk on by and not hang about for a clearing in the conditions, even camp nearby.
But just pasting coordinates of any beautiful place because everyone has a right to see it and stuff the consequences of what impact on those soon to be sensitive areas will be, is perhaps not in the best interest of the future enjoyment of our great land.

Zone-5 the trap idea is not really something we do here. They were banned years ago and went out of practise when Convicts became extinct and then our Tasmanian Tiger. Don't want to cause bushwalkers to suffer the same fate.

[michael_p]

In fact i'd be interested in the legal side of geocaching within national parks/world heritage areas. It's a form of littering isnt it?

Just to clarify, it differs from state to state.

[baeurabasher]

In fact i'd be interested in the legal side of geocaching within national parks/world heritage areas. It's a form of littering isnt it?

Just to clarify, it differs from state to state.

Hi Michael. You sound like you are speaking from experience. Could you give some examples of what differs from state to state? And what the penalties actually would be?

[tastrax]

But if we don't build it, then someone else is likely to and then we have no say/control over what is put up.
Matt

That's exactly what authors told me when I was in a previous track management position with Parks - "If I don't write this guidebook/peak bagging guide/wilderness tracks book then someone else will and I will lose part of my market". Thankfully many of the bigger and more well known authors finally agreed with us and agreed voluntarily to limit publicity in certain areas. Some did, some didnt, some objected to our requests and other got blasted by the public when they produced the books.

For me the same would go for this map points idea. I would only welcome additional information on already well publicised tracks not in any sensitive areas.

But if we don't build it, then someone else is likely to and then we have no say/control over what is put up.
Matt

...and hopefully (as is happening) some members of this forum will be vocal about the impacts that this may have on our environment.

Welcome to the no win world of environmental management Matt

[tastrax]

In fact i'd be interested in the legal side of geocaching within national parks/world heritage areas. It's a form of littering isnt it?

Just to clarify, it differs from state to state.

Some states have very clear policies - here is one of them

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/polic ... Policy.htm

[baeurabasher]

Hi tastrax. That is a very interesting link thank-you for adding that to the discussion.

Being a pws personal, have you any idea if these regulations are followed?

[tastrax]

I am not aware of how effective the regulation is but I suspect other states are looking at it carefully.

In theory the same rules would apply in Tasmania ( I will try and nut out the legislation)

Certainly is Tasmania, some staff are right onto any caches that are left in inappropriate places.

More nsw information here - http://www.geocachingnsw.asn.au/index.p ... -nat-parks

[tastrax]

and more here

http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... 31#p173931

[neilmny]

Not quite on topic but I hope you folk that are outraged at the sharing of information on the hallowed Tasmanian ground,
having seen some of these fragile secret places but once, accidentally I trust, have never ever returned to them. Surely you realise that your own footsteps would bugger the sacred bush equally as much as those that may follow.
Any way you try to bend it, it reads as elitist crap.

[tastrax]

Any way you try to bend it, it reads as elitist crap.

That's your opinion and certainly not one I share! - there are plenty of places I would love to go (both in Tasmania and overseas) but feel that my impact would simply add to that of those who have walked before me.

[tastrax]

Surely you relaise that your own footsteps would bugger the sacred bush equally as much as those that may follow.

Not quite correct actually - often some of the greatest impact is by those "pioneer walkers" who are the first to visit these places. Even if no-one went after them it could take years to recover. This has been well documented in many studies including those undertaken in Tasmania in the 1990's/2000's.

If folks continue to walk in the same alignment then the impact generally gets deeper until it becomes uncomfortable to walk in the trench and then it starts to get wider (although that can depend on the vegetation, slope and general terrain).

[Zone-5]

so you are welcome to call me an elitist prick for poopooing your idea if it makes you feel better?

No mate, I'm not at all calling you an - elitist prick - for poopoing my idea, far from it! I'm just agreeing with your own quote that you are one!

Any way you try to bend it, it reads as elitist crap.

..got it in one Neil!

This entire thread has been totally hijacked by you guys to discuss your own brand of conservation semantics!

All I suggested was that it may be useful to walkers if utilitarian finds like unmarked permanent water, camp sites, danger points and the like were shared as eesy peesie GPS waypoints, nothing more. This thread has nothing to do with geocaching or other pointless gamings.

Can we get back on topic, please!

[neilmny]

Perhaps if the nay sayers had actually read the thread first and not just the initial topic heading.

......................All I suggested was that it may be useful to walkers if utilitarian finds like unmarked permanent water, camp sites, danger points and the like were shared as eesy peesie GPS waypoints, nothing more. This thread has nothing to do with geocaching or other pointless gamings. ..................

This was my understanding of the intended purpose. How this would damage anything is beyond me.
If Tasmania is so fragile perhaps you had all better get out and save it from ruin.
But it appears that the elite who give themselves permission to view and judge don't see themselves
as part of the problem.

As you say Zone-5 let's get back to the topic.

[doogs]

No mate, I'm not at all calling you an - elitist prick - for poopoing my idea, far from it! I'm just agreeing with your own quote that you are one!

and once again you are misquoting .

This entire thread has been totally hijacked by you guys to discuss your own brand of conservation semantics!

All I suggested was that it may be useful to walkers if utilitarian finds like unmarked permanent water, camp sites, danger points and the like were shared as eesy peesie GPS waypoints, nothing more. This thread has nothing to do with geocaching or other pointless gamings.

Can we get back on topic, please!

As far as I am concerned it is on topic and you appear to get upset when someone disagrees with your point of view. I have clearly stated I don't have a problem with you idea apart from in off track areas in Tasmania. You probably haven't bothered to look at the forum site rules like I suggested so here is a link and the rule that I previously mentioned http://bushwalk.com/rules.php:
24. Avoid posting detailed information on accessing sensitive areas without recognised tracks to public topics, but rather use private messages, email, or other non-public means to communicate such information instead. Feel free to ask questions about such areas publicly, so long as the post includes a reminder of this rule to get answers privately only.
Also try reading some of the World Heritage Area management plan also (I know it's getting a bit old but it's due to be updated later this year): http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=6364
Tastracks posted several other links in this thread which are worthwhile reads..
I hope by reading these rules and reports you might understand that I am not trying to "hijacked by you guys to discuss your own brand of conservation semantics!".
I also suggest next time you are in your local bookstore, have a look at a Chapman guidebook on an area in Tasmania and you with see pages upon pages of detailed notes on The Overland Track or South Coast Track. When it comes to an off track mountain range which takes 10+ days to traverse there is no more than a paragraph written.

[Nuts]

But it appears that the elite who give themselves permission to view and judge don't see themselves
as part of the problem. As you say Zone-5 let's get back to the topic.

The topic was a question wasn't it? People are responding? I'm sure nobody means to stomp all over Zoneys topic.. but he did ask.

To me it's resorting to labels (rather than addressing the given concerns) that hijacks these topics. If anyone doesn't have the experience to understand then why not keep an open mind and learn? If you don't agree, address the comments made directly, especially from those doing the courtesy of trying to explain

Is it not 'elitist' to think nothing needs to be considered before walkers slap location-tagged photo's on the net?

I'd go further than doogs and others and say there is no place for them, not even on recognised walking tracks. If the reasons aren't (or aren't becoming) obvious, some of it may become repetitive but i'm happy to explain why not? (though at some stage you guys will have to get involved by discussing the reasons 'why').

[neilmny]

wow, takes all sorts I guess. Nothing popular or likely to become so, not through or too anywhere potentially sensitive now or in the future. You guys get this right? .. No point just watercourses or fine views without someone mapping the way? Meh, what harm can adding to such a library do? Whatever enhances ones wilderness experience?

(another token voice of concern, please, carry on)

Nuts, when you chimed in Matt had already changed the topic to "Mapping out handy locations on bushwalk.com" Geocaching had been dropped as a heading and had been briefly discussed as an unsuitable approach, as well as the need to avoid discussion or disclosure of sensitive areas.

I have quoted your first post and you will see you did not bother to read beyond that which enraged you, the word Geocache.

On the subject of discussion, it would be pointless discussing any topic with any person who doesn't even bother to consider the entire topic. You basically just reacted to the word Geocache and now your trying to spin your way out and blame me and zone5 for your own ill considered reaction.

Please feel free to convince me how mapping out some handy locations would bugger the bush.

[Nuts]

haha, i'm not 'enraged' at all.. avoiding chores and adding my bit. I'm very much a fatalist when it comes to inevitable change.
I never mentioned geocaches, they can be done without a physical object can't they? (i don't know, hadn't taken much notice) They also don't need anything more than gps co-ords do they? no photos or map points along the way?

Anyhow, no, I never mentioned nor had in mind geocaches. I was simply responding to ideas growing from the posts before me

[north-north-west]

Not quite on topic but I hope you folk that are outraged at the sharing of information on the hallowed Tasmanian ground,
having seen some of these fragile secret places but once, accidentally I trust, have never ever returned to them. Surely you realise that your own footsteps would bugger the sacred bush equally as much as those that may follow.
Any way you try to bend it, it reads as elitist crap.

The fact is, someone has to decide how much information is given out about places, and to whom, unless we have a total free-for-all about everywhere.
Surely the most appropriate people to make that decision are those who have been to the places and can fully appreciate the consequences to the environment of various degrees of traffic? I'd certainly trust (for instance) Nuts' judgment than that of nameless, faceless and totally uninvolved bureaucrats who couldn't tell an antechinus from a bog.

[wildwalks]

Well - this has been an exciting discussion

As mentioned already I am only interested in this if we can find a nice solution.

One idea is that we use track and road data to generate a "near tracked area" GIS file. We then only allow items to be displayed if they are in (say 300m) of a track. We can then add to or remove from this area based on feedback.
???

Matt

[Zone-5]

haha, i'm not 'enraged' at all..

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


Utilitarianism is my only goal here, nothing more.

Look guys, I'm an old geezer who just likes to take happy strolls and doesn't like falling onto hidden sinks because of some 'lofty toff' prefect who thought to keep it a secret!!




I mean what part of the word 'utilitarianism' don't you refuse to understand?

[north-north-west]

I mean what part of the word 'utilitarianism' don't you refuse to understand?

Do you refuse to understand. Too many negatives in there.

But, to answer your intended question (I presume): Understanding is not lacking. Some of us just disagree with the idea that 'the majority' (of humans) knows what's best overall and in the long run (for the planet as a whole).

[wildwalks]

Hi all
Please get back onto the topic at hand. No good will come from trying to debate who-is-who and what "utilitarianism" means. Lets just ride above this one and move on (please).
Matt

[tastrax]

Look guys, I'm an old geezer who just likes to take happy strolls and doesn't like falling onto hidden sinks because of some 'lofty toff' prefect who thought to keep it a secret!!

First mention of wanting this site to display "unforeseen hazards"

Prepare flame suit................ sounds more like someone who wants to be held by the hand and shown everything rather than taking the time to discover the environment on its own terms.