How hard can if be? Tasmap and Parks

[Ent]

At times I wonder if the Tasmanian Public Service is better renamed Disservice. We have Parks with boots on the ground and Tasmap hunched over aerial photographs. The result is tracks that have no great accuracy that for near zero cost could be near five metre perfect.

Parks is an asset manager so unless back in the dark ages they should have their assets identified by GPS location. It should be so easy to share data with Tasmaps. But instead they do not. What we have is a failure of communication between two government bureaucracies that results in a poor outcome for Tasmanians.

The classic is the Lees Paddock track from Pelion. The old Tasmap has it failing to connect to the Arm River Track. Their latest effort has it going across a swamp! On the ground a very clearly marked track exists with it apparently starting at the registration box.

And some people may wonder why I am so critical of these two government bureacracies! They are mired in bureaucratic process that frustrates common sense and innovation.

How hard can it be for them to share data? A couple of GPSs and in a few months as part or regular Parks' activities Tasmap could drop the word approximate from their maps.

O'well I suppose the ineffective bureaucrats will remain in place decrying the lack of money. They do not deserve a cent until they get their house in order IMHO.

[clarence]

I completely agree.

Every time I hear about a lost walker, and complaints about how much the search is costing, my first thought is whether they became lost by using an innaccurate government-produced map (or proceeding along a poorly marked toursit trail).

If Tasmania is promoting itself as an outdoor tourism destination, then accurate maps (and signs) are not too much to ask.

I agree totally that the Parks and Wildlife Service in Tasmania is not a service but a DIS-SERVICE as you state, with too many obstructionist and officious bureaucrats making small-minded decisions against the interests they are supposed to promote. I used to work for the NPWS in NSW and the prevalance of this stupidity was part of the reason I left. Some people in these organisations have a knack of establishing their own little empires and dictating their ideas within them, having unfortunate outcomes for the general public who use our natural areas.

As far as innaccurate tracks go, how about the one from the Mersey Forest Rd to Chalice Lake? About 500m off course from what the map shows.

Interestingly, the area you mention between Pelion and the upper Mersey was the site of intensive track works only a few years ago by the PWS. I'm sure they know exactly where the various tracks are.

The politically-correct bureaucracy makes me question the way the general public should be treating walking tracks and wild places. I know progressively more people who are clearing / re-establishing long established tracks which have been completely ignored by the current attitude of land managers like the parks service both in Tas and elsewhere.

This being said, when a sensible decision is made I will give credit where it is due (see a post regarding access to the Meander Forest reserve a few months back on this site).

Clarence

[walkinTas]

When you pay your annual park fee you have a choice to join wildcare. You can then help maintain the tracks. Tasmania has a very long tradition of volunteers helping to maintain tracks. Visit wildcare and read some more. Are you doing your bit to help?

If you think all tracks and maps should be maintained (by employed staff), on an annual bases to a very high standard, then you can expect to pay a much higher annual parks fee. The government is cutting back on the number of staff, not increasing the numbers. Some people have this weird idea that people employed by the government have nothing to do, so they can take on extra duties at the drop of a hat. After all, they are all just sitting around in a hut somewhere or amusing themselves with a camera. They could be out mapping tracks or doing necessary maintenance. Ent, what if I gave you a GPS and told you to record every walk every day, but don't expect any extra pay for it, and yes you still need to pay attention to all your other duties. Of course it could be done, someone could walk every track with a GPS, but someone has to pay for it. It is not at "next to nothing" cost. It takes time to use and maintain the gear, it takes time to upload the data, it takes time to correct the GPS record, it takes time to double check the data, it takes time to add the data to the maps.... and time & equipment cost money. ....but wait, we've already established that they are getting paid and have nothing else to do... Oops!

As far as inaccurate tracks go, how about the one from the Mersey Forest Rd to Chalice Lake? About 500m off course from what the map shows.

Before you walk on any track you should do some research and use multiple sources. Especially if your maps are old. Tracks do get moved and updated - this is an example. Maps age. Maps are only one way to get information. Clubs, and forums like this one, are more likely to give you up-to-date information, or you can ring the department and ask. I guess people's expectations are changing and with modern technology we expect more accuracy, but I always saw tracks on maps as a guide only. I took and old map, but I had no trouble finding this track and no trouble following it.

I guess somewhere in the future you'll be able to buy a pair of glasses that will give you a 3D view and a red line showing exactly where the track goes. Won't be as much fun though.

[Ent]

Hi WalkinTas

I am a mad keen OSM mapper so been doing what you hold is so hard to do and it is nor is it time consuming converting GPS plots to tracks. It is much more time consuming converting tracks from aerial photographs. In fact I would be more than happy to upload into OSM GPS plots taken by reliable on ground walkers. It is quite simple to check against a few plots and "average" out the variations. If done right you can have a plot that is eerie in its accuracy from rather economical GPSs. Makes for easy track following when snow has covered the track and visibility has closed in.

The simple fact is the data more than likely exists. Under modern asset management systems adopted by progressive councils and other asset management authorities data is store on the asset such as its location, date of introduction, and under risk management a condition report. It is dead simple to share this data with other entities- if you want to! In fact, a lot of councils are sharing this data with Google maps and what is the cost of Google maps? Oh yes it is free to the average punter. Why do they do this? Community service obligation.

I would be extremely surprised and disappointed if Parks did not have the tracks marked out with GPS plots. Not doing this would suggest that they are negligent in asset and risk management. In fact, on this site we get enough hints that Parks are beavering away doing this. To which I say, great work, keep it up. What is apparent is the data is not been shared. Why not? Well as pointed out empire building along with bureaucrat ineptitude and nonsense most likely. Lets see how this can happen. Tasmap asks Parks for data. Parks forms a committee and then after a few overseas study tours later votes to have a consultant report that decides that the data is worth X to cover the cost of the committee's jaunts. Tasmap on a small budget says, no way, so nothing happens. Or Parks offers the data to Tasmap and gets hit with an almost unachievable list of requirements along with a contract that has more words than War and Peace. Or, nobody thought of doing this because they live in bureaucratic silos. I have no idea what is the game and who is a fault, all I know is it wrong!

I am familiar with asset management systems of councils along with a large company with significant land holdings and I am getting a very good understanding of mapping approaches. I therefore find it very strange what you say. An asset management system is vital to establish the best practice on asset management and replacement. It can tell you when you will need to spend money and what is the most efficacious form of infrastructure. Do you use treated pine versus some form of mesh for protecting sensitive erosion prone areas, etc? Progressive councils are monitoring every thing from pipes to bridges to establish what is best. Also they are finding that the expected forty year (approximate) life expectancy of timber bridges is no longer happening. Why? In the old days the big beams under the bridges were hand shaped by adze that "sealed" the timber grain. Modern process is to cut the beams by saw blade which creates a rough surface that results in water ingress and rot at an earlier stage in the bridge's life cycle. Not suggesting that we send modern workers out with such tools, merely that assumptions on replacing wood bridge with concrete bridge have changed. The councils with effective asset management systems are better placed to make the correct decision. And this saves money

I am not critical of the boots on the ground in Parks nor significant parts of the necessary bureaucracy but I find no logical reason why Tasmap needs to have "approximate" marked for tracks when Parks has this information. Even if Parks did not have that information surely as part of their best practice O&HS they issue their staff with appropriate navigation equipment, that being a GPS? Heaven help the Senior Ranger if his reports get lost and die in a snow storm because he/she decided to save a few dollars on such basic equipment. They can look forward to significant penalties if found negligent.

What I am critical off is the infighting and stupidity that goes on between government departments at times. I pay my taxes so I see the Tasmanian Public Service as the one entity and have zero tolerance for bureaucratic games. What I demand for my dollars is a dedicated and innovative group of people. This State has produced some world class examples of engineering and bureaucratic efficient systems but sadly it is not immune from infighting between bureaucracies.

It is a joke that given the on ground infrastructure for marking the track that Tasmap has the access from the Lees Paddock Track to the Arm River Track so wrong. In fact the Arm River Track itself is out by significant amounts. The comment on the Chapter Lake is in part due to the track being re-routed by Parks to I believe to avoid erosion. Tasmap's redrafting cycle means it has been sometime for this change to be reflected in maps, as the alternative way around Lake Bill. Now if Tasmap made available vector maps online then it would be immediately up-to-date once Parks mapped out the new route and commissioned it. For crying out loud is that not to much to ask? Or do we have to put up with WW1 mapping techniques and politics that is older than the days that the eunuchs ruled the Chinese bureaucracy. I hope, not else time to reinstate neutering the bureaucrats.

Cheers

[sthughes]

I see this completely separately from track maintenance issues.

I agree it takes stuff all time to record tracks if you walk them anyway. It would take Tasmap less time to put a GPS track on a map than using aerial photos (in most cases).

The Parks staff would have to do nothing but turn on the GPS and chuck it in their back pack. 30 seconds a day at $150/hr = $1.25. So Tasmap give Parks free maps in return?

We aren't really talking about making lazy rangers do more work. Just killing two birds with one stone.

clarence wrote:
Tracks do get moved and updated - this is an example.

Rubbish. Track was moved ages ago. 2010 Cathedral map - track is still shown in the original location.

I think Tasmap do a good job, but with a bit of cross-department co-operation they could do a great job. Cartographers don't have time to have their feet on the ground everywhere walking tracks, rangers with their feet on the ground everywhere aren't being paid to sit on computers making maps.

[Genesis]

This thread is timely for me, as I will be walking mersey forest road to junction lake via cloister and also on the last leg of a 5 day walk heading out from Pelion via Les Paddocks. With all the talk of GPS'ing tracks accuratly has anyone got a track log in a garmin format for these legs?

1. Mersey forest road - Junction lake
2. Junction lake via Never Never to hartnett falls.
3. Pelion hut to Lees paddocks

PM me if you do and want to share them.

Cheers
Genesis

[Ent]

Walkintas just for the record I have expended many hours on a worldwide community project. It is called OSM. Here the only agenda is to create the best maps possible.

I have spent many hours on various community projects but one thing that annoys volunteers is bureaucratic indifference or waste of their efforts. Strange but I have never met on the track volunteers doing track maintenance. Maybe one day I will see you out there. But I do tremble at the thought of a bridge built by an accountant. Willing to have a go at lower Kiora Creek!

Regards

[tastrax]

OK a few pointers on track data and the passing of that information between government divisions/agencies/departments. Remember that Parks has not always been in the same agency as the map producers but we have had close connections for many, many years.

Parks and Wildlife until the mid 90's relied on data from Land Information Services for all their GIS data needs and they had no GIS specialists
In the mid 90's to about 2006 there was a dedicated group of people working full time on track management (I was one of those lucky people) - this included track monitoring, education, research and some data capture (with consumer grade GPS equipment)
One of those team members was a GIS position to commence collating data (not just tracks data but many other assets as well)
When the PWS asset system was designed in the mid 2000's a data capture was undertaken around the state (with dedicated staff and consumer grade GPS equipment) for "major assets" like buildings, roads etc but not all walking tracks.
We have extremely detailed data on the major walking tracks like the southcoast, overland, walls etc
Other data is captured as and when possible by staff

ALL PWS TRACK DATA IS PASSED TO DPIPWE (Tasmap makers) As some of you know this also includes lesser known routes, pads etc that appear on emergency services maps.
DPIPWE accept data from the public and may or may not use that in their mapping.
Some DPIPWE data gets passed onto other third parties and some ends up on Google Earth

There is quite a bit of work to be done to a track log before it gets onto a map. You need to clean up all the spikes etc whilst maintaining a suitable level of accuracy. It may then get checked with aerial photography and may or may not get nodes removed from the track to make it suitable for the scale of the map being produced. The best result are gained from differential GPS's (high end equipment), however for most needs the newer GPS's provide pretty good accuracy.

I am happy to accept any track logs that folks would like to supply for possible inclusion on maps (volunteers do this for us quite regularly). PM me for my work email address. I can then check it against our own logs, aerial photography (if available) and do edits, clean ups and add the required attributes for our asset system. I am happy to provide guidelines on setting up Garmin GPS's for the best result.

I am also regularly in touch with the one GIS specialist in Parks and Grant Dixon (Track Monitoring Officer).

[Ent]

Hi TasTrax

I was rather hoping that you would join in and much appreciated your input. I have been reading your various comments on numerous threads and noticed that Parks has been beavering away at asset management and applaud their efforts. Hopefully the political masters will eventually understand that X dollars in assets needs Y dollars in maintenance, every year. It took a long time and lot of effort before councils went to accrual based accounting. Hang on some may say what has accounting got to do with this. Heaps as when accrual based accounting was adopted then it became apparent that more than a few councils were not maintaining their assets. Some may remember the cycle of minimal rate increased followed by an epic blow up that everything is falling to pieces followed by huge rate hike, and so the political wheel spun.

Anyway back to Tasmap, Parks and mapping. I like Parks started off with PDA and C/F GPS card. Err? Tassie's weather put paid to that as I sent two HP IPAQ 4700HX to a visit to silicon heaven but both returned but the C/F GPS card did not. Next step was the Garmin 62S. Which most know I love its ability to track but hate with a passion its interface. This device will track to five metres and much better with a clear view of the sky and holds up remarkably well under trying conditions. Nothing short of a commercial grade GPS can better it. Councils would hire in GPS experts for the precision plotting of manhole covers, etc but a quality consumer GPS was good enough for road tracking. Some might have noticed on the DIER roads a horizontal white line. This is their means of dividing up the road asset into sections. Even our Auditor General, now retired, would drive a road with a council engineer and stop and get out and check what the asset registered said compared to the actual road. It was apparently rather embarrassing for more than a few councils, GPS tracking of assets in now best practice. Full marks to Parks for getting with it in 2008, maybe ten years behind the ball but still in the race.

Ok can someone please then scruff the person responsible for the Lees Paddocks Track to Arm River Track join up. Look at it please Tastrax and tell me if I am wrong. At the moment Tasmap has you heading across a marsh The older version of Cathedral just simply stopped short of joining the tracks. It appears that someone thought, um that is not going to fly, better join the tracks, straight line sounds good. As mentioned even the Arm River Track itself is out. As mentioned we have the Chapter Lake issue and for fun try navigating in snow along the Moses Creek Track using Tasmap best efforts. I using my Garmin 62s had loaded in a friends rough plot done by a basic Garmin dumbed down further to save on its limited memory and it killed Tasmap's effort.

We then get into the difficult area of track censorship. It is clear that Parks and I will never agree as chalk and cheese but even then there are a few glaring examples where something is not right. Reynold Falls Track as mentioned appears on some Tasmaps but not on others. Hang on did not a previous poster raise the issue of lost walkers and the cost of rescue. And did not a group get lost and the Tasmanian Police made a rare release that the groups navigation tools were unsuitable for the "remote" area. Case proven that poor navigation tools results in a rescue.

We have the Daisy Lake, actually Long Tarn Track. It has a registration box, steel markers yet is no where to be seen on Tasmap. Again a previous poster raised the issue of people giving up on Parks and cleaning up the old traditional tracks for their and others use. This is happening on one track I walked this week but a track Nazi has been through and removed the tape. Also a few cairns are rather suspicious as appear to be designed to mislead but could have been left over from where the track was blocked by fallen trees. Now, I am not blaming Parks for that as there are plenty of idiots/fanatics out there that take delight in such things, and even some that believe it is their "right" to do such things "preserving the wilderness". I am of the era that you leave a gate as you found it. Will rebuild a knocked over cairn and put a blocking cairn where there is a false lead but never take action to compromise or mislead other people's navigation. After a few trips gradually building up a reliable GPS plot of the track and interesting seeing were we went wrong in the past. I can not but help but to admire the old timers, Basil Steers, Paddy Hartnett, etc. These guys knew how to pick the line of least resistance through the scrub. And these tracks appear to have very little erosion issues may I add as a result.

Honestly, I have no idea what governs an acceptable track or an off track area. Is it Tasmap? Is it well known local knowledge? Is it a well marked by some land authority track? All I ask is if Parks considers it an acceptable path then Tasmap gets it on their maps in the right place.

As mentioned I have been cleaning up tracks. Using OSM I load up the GPS traces. Chose the one I that feel that we made the least navigation mistake on and then go through it point by point averaging out the plots (generally most are within a few metres of each other) and removing the false leads. Result was impressive on a snow walk in a area that a couple of years before when we spent hours trudging around looking for a track and falling into endless snow laden scrub. The time taken cleaning up a GPS plot is not that long. In fact a lot less than floundering around in snow

It appears that we need another round of Tasmap, please have a look at the data you have as it clear that they have more than a few glaring issues. It takes nothing more than to load up a Parks' GPS plot over their maps and see what is different. As I frequently raised the map printing quality (meaning what a human eye can read without magnification) limits accuracy to ten metres on the 1:25,000 series so a five or ten metre spike will not show up on a printed map. But a stuff up as mentioned above does. I have ground truth enough plots to now know that the Garmin 62S can be relied on within ten metres, in fact, a couple.

Come on guys talk to each other and get it right. The tools are there and the cost argument is a complete Furphy as it could well be cheaper to get the communications right than each bureaucracy operating in a silo.

Cheers

[tastrax]

We do talk to each other, we do exchange data but PWS are not the map makers. We also only collect data as and when we can. I suggest you also pass your logs to TASMAP/DPIPWE and wait for the next update.

Again I am happy to accept any logs you have to compare with those that we hold (and pass on).

[Ent]

Hi Tastrax

Sounds like a plan, and good one Be great to get the best information on Tasmap, even if I hate their old and even new pricing model. And more than happy to help out. I use OSM to clean up the tracks as I average out multiple plots to get rid of the "spikes". Need to find a way to reverse engineer the OSM track back to a Garmin trace before I can send this on. Unedited traces would be rather misleading not to mention embarrassing seeing the occasional, "where did the the track go circles".

Cheers

[clarence]

walkinTas

In response to your comments. For me personally, I don't care greatly whether the tracks are accurately depicted or not. It is about a basic level of information that other less experienced park users (eg interstate visitors with less knowledge) should reasonably expect when coming to a place which is promoted as an outdoor recreation destination.

I too had no trouble finding and following the track to Chalice Lake on my first trip up there. However, I did notice that the route we were following was totally different to where the track was depicted on the map. I think that any experienced outdoors person should be sufficiently aware of their location to notice this as an issue and proceed with some degree of caution. I later found out the track had been re-routed, I can understand that. But when the same incorrect track is shown on the updated edition of the map several years later, that is simply pathetic- and exactly what Ent is talking about. (Please note that it appears I have been quoted incorrectly by sthughes in reference to this- a mistake I would think).

To top it off, the words "approximate position" were removed from the 2010 edition and replaced with "walking route", giving the original error a greater degree of formality. Furthermore, I have neen informed that the 1:100 000 sheet shows the track in a different location to the 1:25 000 sheet. Both of these are produced by the same organisation! That type of error is hard to defend.

When I investigated assisting with track maintenance through the PWS, the level of bureaucracy I encountered was hard to believe. As Ent mentioned, who wants to volunteer when their efforts are met with indifference and wastefulness? I will do my own bit to help maintain tracks, but do not want another layer of bureaucracy imposed on me when I do so.

There are indeed some very dedicated and hard-working people in the PWS. However certain "obstructionist and officious bereaucrats" and the organisation generally don't do itself any favours.

Clarence

[greyim]

Budget constraints don't help! but technology has leapt ahead and helped alot... a far cry from the cartography of yesteryear