Tracks, Huts, etc Omitted from Tasmanian Maps [merged]

[Liamy77]

if a hut is marked it can be maintained and used, if it is hidden.... its not any *&%$#! use

[pazzar]

if a hut is marked it can be maintained and used, if it is hidden.... its not any *&%$#! use

Thats not entirely true. Solitary hut at Tiger Lake is not marked on any Tasmap, but I know that it would be quite a useful hut to stay in an emergency. I'm sure there are many other huts that would be useful in an emergency that aren't marked on maps.

[Son of a Beach]

It wouldn't be too hard to have a different indication - colour coded, perhaps - for 'routes', footpads, unofficial tracks and the like.

They are often labelled as "approximate position only" or something like that, I think (on the Tasmap ones, anyhow).

The one in my screenshot earlier is actually labelled as "unmarked route" (which implies it should probably not have been put on the map at all, according to the current guidelines).

[Son of a Beach]

Lets face it such people do not hop off the boat and buy a map 1:25,000 and say, "ghee, that looks like a good track, wonder what where the Big Mac food stop is"

Have you not talked to the tourists on the Overland Track?

[turtle]

Thanks guys for this topic. We have been wondering why things were disappearing off the maps of Fraser Island. Yep happening up our way too.

[alliecat]

if a hut is marked it can be maintained and used, if it is hidden.... its not any *&%$#! use

Thats not entirely true. Solitary hut at Tiger Lake is not marked on any Tasmap, but I know that it would be quite a useful hut to stay in an emergency. I'm sure there are many other huts that would be useful in an emergency that aren't marked on maps.

Umm, they're no use at all if you don't know they are there... and how do you know they are there if they don't appear on a map? Should we really have to rely on privately kept maps and track notes?

I have to agree with Brett and NNW (what's the world coming to? ) there is no excuse for removing information from maps that can impact on people's safety. The existence of known tracks and huts is vital information both for planning trips and in emergency situations. Any policy that removes information like that is absurd.

If the powers that be want to play silly buggers about it they should provide two versions of the maps; one with all the scary walking track information removed for the tourists, and a complete and accurate version for people that actually rely on maps for navigation like, oh, I don't know, bushwalkers maybe?

The present situation is bizarre, with older maps (which should be less useful) containing more information than current versions. For example, my copy of the 1:100k shows the Lake Myrtle track - from what Brett says, it seems the current one does not.

Perhaps we need to find out who is responsible for deciding the content of the tasmaps and organise to send them a polite letter explaining that their current policies are a safety issue?

Cheers,
Alliecat

[Son of a Beach]

Feel free to post to the Tasmap forums.

I don't think that I worded my original post for this topic very well. It was not really well thought out, and it come across as a bit of a rant against both Tasmap and PWS (which would be OK except that I think it's not appropriate for a site admin here). So sorry about that.

However, it has resulted in some really good information from PWS (thanks to Tastrax), along with some interesting discussion.

[ollster]

I thought it was quite diplomatic? Considering it was dealing with some facts and making some fair suppositions. I think it's pretty obvious by the reaction of board members that we tend to agree that the maps are a bit... lacking in some areas.

Interesting - is this covered under FOI I wonder? Does that extend to Tasmaps?

[tastrax]

Hi Folks,

I think everyone has been quite diplomatic and what is being put forward in the forum reflects what has been going on at both PWS and public forums for over 15 years. Some folk will agree, others wont, some support PWS, some don't.

The hut stuff is interesting and I suspect it may be lack of knowledge by some PWS staff that sees some huts missing off maps (not my area of expertise) but that should improve as our asset system now contains both "our built assets" and "historic assets" (provided by other agencies). I suspect some historic assets will gradually appear on maps especially where they are in usable condition or adopted by volunteer groups who do work on them (according to set guidelines). In some cases the other agencies may have reason not to supply exact information on their locations - we get the information so that we can make assessments in times of wildfires etc.

Here are some more things to consider.... this is not intended to stir up anyone but it is related to the discussion.

What about an emergency shelter/hut/ruin in an area where the tracks (or pads or routes) are not shown - should they be on maps (ie like the old "Temple Hut or Solitary Hut - very different "huts")?
How about choke points on remote ridge walks that are visibly impacted (lots of these about) - should they be shown as discontinuous lines?
How about the routes to all the Abels?

[daznkez]

Wasn't it Sun Tzu's brother who said "He with the best map gains the victory" ?.
We agree with Brett and others, that maps are loosing their accuracy and therefore their usefulness.
The ongoing omission of caves from maps is another sore point, due to other groups with some leverage on map makers.
There is an argument that "because somebody was naughty with map information, everyone has to suffer".
This response is not really very adult, and in any event only appears to be selectively applied.
Once upon a time secret military bases were broadly defined on maps, but we all didn't decide to go there and throw custard about.
Some of the forestry maps appear to have taken it a step further providing a "Flat earth-here be dragons" map template, so instead of just walking to some place like say Kermandie Falls!, you can end up playing Where's Wally in a logging coupe.

[north-north-west]

It wouldn't be too hard to have a different indication - colour coded, perhaps - for 'routes', footpads, unofficial tracks and the like.

They are often labelled as "approximate position only" or something like that, I think (on the Tasmap ones, anyhow).

Yep, they do the same on the Vicmaps topographics. Also notes as to tracks no longer being maintained. Sometimes. I think that's preferable to omitting tracks altogether. Let people know there's something there and give them an idea of its standard.
This is a safety issue.

[ILUVSWTAS]

How about the routes to all the Abels?

THIS is one that annoys me. Apparantly parks jumped up and down and delayed and discouraged the realease of Bill's volume 2 because they didnt want everyone trekking across the state visiting all the ables.
MOST of them are untracked, and if a person wants to visit them, then they will visit them. A guide book advising of the best route isnt necessarily going to make it possible for everyone to get there, MOST people would still have the common sense to think, hang on that sounds a bit scrubby, cliffy, long whatever, maybe I dont have the appropriate experience to tackle this walk.
I dont think it makes it any easier for people.

If someone wants to go visit these peaks badly enough then they will do so anyway and a guide book is a good thing.

[Liamy77]

if a hut is marked it can be maintained and used, if it is hidden.... its not any *&%$#! use

Thats not entirely true. Solitary hut at Tiger Lake is not marked on any Tasmap, but I know that it would be quite a useful hut to stay in an emergency. I'm sure there are many other huts that would be useful in an emergency that aren't marked on maps.

fair enough... not any *&%$#! use -unless you already know it's there and therefore dont need the map or aren't lost in the first place. Or you just get lucky and stumble on it!

[Liamy77]

but really i dont see any particular mention of any specific govt or mapping agency in the title... and if our local"authorities" wish to operate policies that potentially are a risk to my or others health and safety then giving em hell is what a democracy is about i think!
duty of care in society even- ethically morally required to be said!

[ILUVSWTAS]

My wife has just joined my side, and as her father works for parks I showed her this thread.
In 2 seconds she said maybe they are trying to protect their own *&^%$#@!. Like if a hut is shown on a map, maybe the same group that has NO experience that just completed the overland track, fully kit out with their hairdryers and luxury items see a hut marked on a map in a more rugged area, then maybe they would try to get there. Therefore would the map makers be responsible for misguiding them??

[Liamy77]

Hi Folks,

I think everyone has been quite diplomatic and what is being put forward in the forum reflects what has been going on at both PWS and public forums for over 15 years. Some folk will agree, others wont, some support PWS, some don't.

The hut stuff is interesting and I suspect it may be lack of knowledge by some PWS staff that sees some huts missing off maps (not my area of expertise) but that should improve as our asset system now contains both "our built assets" and "historic assets" (provided by other agencies). I suspect some historic assets will gradually appear on maps especially where they are in usable condition or adopted by volunteer groups who do work on them (according to set guidelines). In some cases the other agencies may have reason not to supply exact information on their locations - we get the information so that we can make assessments in times of wildfires etc.

Here are some more things to consider.... this is not intended to stir up anyone but it is related to the discussion.

What about an emergency shelter/hut/ruin in an area where the tracks (or pads or routes) are not shown - should they be on maps (ie like the old "Temple Hut or Solitary Hut - very different "huts")?
How about choke points on remote ridge walks that are visibly impacted (lots of these about) - should they be shown as discontinuous lines?
How about the routes to all the Abels?

If it has the potential to impact either positively or negatively on the health of the map user then YES IT SHOULD BE SHOWN - this is why we buy the things!!
Folks can still venture into "discouraged areas" if they're in print or not - give us the detail and safety and print restricted area on the bits you wanna restrict?
As for liability a disclaimer on hut condition / definition should do it.... mind you they dont have warnings about falling gum branches etc. either and the tracks currently in print are not always spot on anyway. old or unsupported huts could be shown differently to kept huts.

[ILUVSWTAS]

Funny you should say that Liamy, Check this out...

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4028&hilit=lawyers

[tastrax]

There is probably a bit of that ILUVSWTAS - I know we had some Rangers from QLD come to Tassie and they were amazed at the amount of literature we had out and about warning folks that "bushwalking was a dangerous activity". In their situation they were constantly going to help out and rescue backpackers who did try walks beyond there capabilities simply because of information they had seen in glossy brochures, hostel notice boards etc.

Thankfully I think most folk know its a bit tougher in Tassie so we suffer less of that...except for the odd Overland walker!

PS - Parks really only have a say in the Parks series of maps. We offer advice for the 1:25K series. We also put statements on some maps (like the Walls) telling people that the area is managed as an off track destination and not all tracks/pads may be marked. I suspect there may even be a disclaimer about accuracy on all maps...

[Liamy77]

Funny you should say that Liamy, Check this out...

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4028&hilit=lawyers

Cheers for that... after a couple of home brew ginger beers my fingers couldn't resist a comment there too!

[climberman]

but what if the plan for that area attempts to keep impact below "pad" level (or track level)? Does this mean that all our management now changes and we accept pads, then tracks? This then has implications for other infrastructure because in areas where we have "tracks" there may also be an expectation of toilets and maybe huts. Its the sort of creep that is continually underway.

It means the plan has failed. reality has overtaken it, and should be adapted to. are we managing a plan, or a park ? as a nswelshman i can't really believe that a track leaDs to an expectation of anything else like toilets or huts. it's a track, not a freeway. perhaps your plans have created an unrealistic expectation that reality is not meeting ? perhaps (egads !) people are enjoying the wilds.

you can't keep the creeps away, but you can try and dissuade them from coming by doing funny dances.

[MJD]

I like to see as much as possible on a map and don't like to see tracks, huts, interesting features, etc disappearing. Fortunately I have a modest collection of old maps and my father has a nicer collection that I hope to inherit one day (hint, hint).

A couple of years ago I was heading up to the Cathedral Mtn Plateau by myself and noticed the well defined track continuing up Jacksons Creek. Being inquisitive, and with no one else to nag me about wasting time, I continued up this well defined track that wasn't on the map. It kept going and going and looked like it was heading for Lake Myrtle and Mt Rogoona so I kept meandering along, occassionally having a bit of fun discerning where the track went but not having too much trouble. It did indeed take me to Lake Myrtle. I continued on and I spent an enjoyable night camping by one of the many pools near the summit of Mt Rogoona. Very nice, but it did occur to me that in the unlikely event of an accident then any search would have been concentrated on a different plateau that was 5kms away.

I did have a GPS with OZTopo and a tracking facility so I could always back track if in doubt but I didn't have a PLB back then. It was a walk that I really enjoyed - probably because it wasn't the most sensible thing to do - but then most of us are out there to have fun. As my current walking buddies might suggest, it was clearly an opportunity that natural selection failed to take advantage of .

[Liamy77]

but what if the plan for that area attempts to keep impact below "pad" level (or track level)? Does this mean that all our management now changes and we accept pads, then tracks? This then has implications for other infrastructure because in areas where we have "tracks" there may also be an expectation of toilets and maybe huts. Its the sort of creep that is continually underway.

It means the plan has failed. reality has overtaken it, and should be adapted to. are we managing a plan, or a park ? as a nswelshman i can't really believe that a track leaDs to an expectation of anything else like toilets or huts. it's a track, not a freeway. perhaps your plans have created an unrealistic expectation that reality is not meeting ? perhaps (egads !) people are enjoying the wilds.

you can't keep the creeps away, but you can try and dissuade them from coming by doing funny dances.

i agree, showing a detail on a map does not imply that it is still there or denote what condition it is in at present... and these details can be differentiated in the legend too.
and does that mean we should expect toilets, comfy beds and movie theatres on the tracks that are currently shown???

Of course not!

[Ent]

Like many thing it is a matter of what you believe.

1. Removing information to protect the overly ambitious is poor reason as the overly ambitious are unlikely to have 1:25,000 maps and be navigating from downloaded track notes or rough sketches in guide books.

2. Removing information to stop people going. Err? Google Earth to be banned? Did I not visit Whitely's Hut and Solitary Hut along with a couple of others that also did not appear on maps.

3. Removing information to avoid a law suit. Would we be better off removing lawyers?

For me a map should show as much information as it can with the only limit being where it compromises readability. Any other reason is a sign that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Cheers Brett

[sthughes]

For me a map should show as much information as it can with the only limit being where it compromises readability. m.

Cheers Brett

Yep, I agree.

The actual "Parks" maps (i.e. Walls. Freyceneit etc) I guess can show whatever Parks wish as long as they make it known it isn't a properly detailed map. However the actual 1:25,00 etc. official Tasmaps should be worts and all (as above) in my opinion, if they have the info it should be on the map if it will fit.

[stu]

As my current walking buddies might suggest, it was clearly an opportunity that natural selection failed to take advantage of .

Well it didn't happen 'rock climbing' the north face of the Gog range Martin, perhaps the Mt Seal trip will sort us all out

[ollster]

Well it didn't happen 'rock climbing' the north face of the Gog range Martin, perhaps the Mt Seal trip will sort us all out

I'm already writing a will...

[MJD]

True. I'm also counting on South Geryon being easier.

[MJD]

An interesting question is "How does copyright law apply to out of print maps or more specifically to your old maps where the new version has had information removed that you are interested in?"

[ollster]

I'd also like to know what rights we have to the map data under Freedom of Information act? A casual (IINAL) look seems that it only has reasonable protections for information that is private or of a business nature, and so it could be reasonable to expect claims to be considered?

AND ANOTHER THING! This complaining about censoring the maps to stop people going to "place x" seems to be in direct opposition to the policies implemented on this site, which discourages/moderates posting information about access to sensitive areas?

Can't have it both ways...

[Nuts]

An interesting topic! The park service has a duty to 'manage' the lands under their care so I guess (where they have been behind information being removed) they may have good reasons for removing tracks.
I can think of one track down to Dove Lake that was removed that shows the dilemma clearly. It has the potential to get people down quickly (we actually used it once in a rescue) but was pretty much an eroding drainage line (and getting worse) that would have needed a lot of work to bring it to the standard of other tracks in the area, for the likely users.

As for the Abels. Do our peak baggers really want established routes formed to peaks they have toiled too?
Whether it would/how long it would take for this to happen, whilst open to debate, surely is separate to marking routes and the motivations for doing coming with increased use in mind (aside from increased profits)?
Do you really want guide book authors or tour operators offering a 2/3/400 point Tassie 'panorama' on a plate as with the major walking tracks?
Might be a long time coming but we obviously barely have the resources to manage a handful of slogged tracks let alone an increasing number of routes>pads>tracks...
This has been no doubt happening regardless but cant really see the blame game making much sense. Those involved surely have a duty of care to manage foremost? If the price is a little inconvenience then so be it. The arguments for decreasing safety seem a little muddled, a hut or easy route obviously useful but whats wrong with paying the price whilst planning a walk? If huts, tracks are not shown and this effects planning that much, dont go...

(do the pb points decrease as routes are better established?)