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

[Son of a Beach]

As recently mentioned on the TASMAP forum, and as is known by some walkers, new editions of maps (at least in Tasmania) sometimes omit features such as tracks or huts that were present on the older editions of the maps, or on different scale maps. (Ie, sometimes a feature on the 1:100,000 map is omitted from the 1:25,000 map).

It is my understanding that this is done (at least sometimes) at the request of the PWS who wish for those particular features to receive less publicity, less use, and therefore require less maintenance an money spent on them and get degraded less. I'm sure if I'm wrong here, somebody will correct me.

But whatever the reason, should the map makers be making maps that accurately represent what is there? Or are our maps merely made to show us what the government agencies want us to see? Should government agencies have any sway over what does and does not appear on topographic maps of public land, or should the maps be made purely to be accurate?

Should private land owners be able to have such control over what maps show of their own land?

PS. I'm not intending this to be a witch hunt or an attack on the government, Tasmap or PWS. But merely an open discussion on the related issues.

[tastrax]

Hi Nik,

This is an issue that has been raised for many years and one which is unlikely to be resolved in the short term.

Many years ago (early 90's) PWS policy was to not show tracks of low classifications on maps (as per the Australian Standard AS2156 - parts 1 and 2). This remains the case. All track data from Class 1 - 4 is supplied as public data. Class 5 and 6 is not.

Low classification "tracks" (Class 5 and 6) are made available to emergency services for mapping and things like the mapbooks used by Fire Agencies.

Part of the reason for this is that PWS holds details on 100's of "routes and pads" that are the most likely routes that people would take to remote, often off track destinations. These may or may not have any definition on the ground and are held by PWS mainly to use for monitoring purposes and verification with high scale aerial photography (1:5,000). Unfortunately that information is seldom printed on any of the emergency services maps. The data layers for these tracks provide specific additional information on why this "route or track" is recorded, the levels of impact (if any) and known issues or problems.

The vast majority of Tasmanian walking track data (within PWS managed land) that appears on google earth, tasmaps etc comes from us. It then forms part of DPIPWE data that is also supplied to Geoscience Australia.

Reading the TASMAP forum you will see how the number of staff in the DPIPWE mapping section has been reduced over the years. We help DPIPWE with input to the Park series maps and to a lesser extent the 1:25,000 series (where they overlay PWS managed land).

There may be arguments that every "track, route, pad..." should be on maps, however the non disclosure of some information is a management technique used by many agencies to help protect fragile ecosystems, recreational experiences or cultural sites. I an unsure of how this works on private land - maybe TASMAP can answer that question.

I will be very interested in how this topic develops.

Phil Wyatt
Regional Asset Coordinator - South
Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service

[Son of a Beach]

Thanks for the insider perspective - there is certainly some sense in it. Sorry if I sounded like I was having a rant.

I didn't mean to suggest that all tracks and routes should be included on the maps. It was merely those features that are disappearing from the maps that I was thinking about here.

[climberman]

I didn't mean to suggest that all tracks and routes should be included on the maps.

Why not - is a map a representation of what is there, or what we want to be there ?

[ollster]

Well, the secret air base under the Western Arthurs isn't on any maps, is it? Government plot, I suspect.

On a less serious note, I do often wonder about stuff that's NOT on the maps. There seems to be a fair bit of inconsistency sometimes between different sources. For instance, the topo map on listmap (I presume it's the same source as Tasmap) doesn't list the Mt Murchison track. And yet there's a big official sign at the start. There seem to be a lot of official tracks not listed, which is unhelpful to us poor walkers. Probably good for the numbers on BW.com though...

[Son of a Beach]

I didn't mean to suggest that all tracks and routes should be included on the maps.

Why not - is a map a representation of what is there, or what we want to be there ?

heheh... nice one! I really did come across like a bit of a winer in that OP didn't I?

What I meant in that quoted sentence is that I don't expect the maps to show 'routes' as opposed to tracks. Ie, a route isn't distinctly there, or visible on the ground, whereas a track is. Or some routes may have official markers, in which case they really are a track, and therefore are visible on the ground (by the physical markers), even without any visible foot track. So yes, I stand by that statement except to admit that I'm being flexible with the use of the word "track" (because my definition differs from that of PWS, I suspect). I expect a map to show me what I would expect to see if I was standing on the ground. If there is a distinct foot pad, or by occasional markers on the trees, ground, rocks, etc when I'm actually there, then I would expect to see it marked on the map. If there is nothing in particular to see on the ground when there in person, then I would not expect to see it on the map. Anything else is distinctly misleading, whether for good reasons or not.

I guess everyone has different opinions but I would expect the maps to show tracks that are clearly visible on the ground when your actually standing there in person, either by a well-worn foot pad, or by purposefully placed official markers. I would not expect exceedingly vague foot pads to be shown, nor unofficial routes, even if marked illegally.

Perhaps what Tastrax and PWS explanation means is that the classification of tracks keeps changing between map editions? That is the only explanation that seems to fit, which makes perfect sense to me.

I'm not sure if it explains all of the track disappearances, but then it might.

One example is in the map clip attached here. This is the junction of two maps which were obviously developed at different times, with the one at the bottom including the track, and the one at the top not including the track (the blue marks were added by me for my own navigation needs for when I got there). The track (route actually) definitely doesn't end on this map boundary, as it is a most undesirable location to stop at, by all accounts I've heard.

I suspect this particular route should never have been included on any of the maps according to the current policy, so the lower map probably pre-dates the current policy. Even on the map, it is labelled as an "unmarked route" and not a track at all.

[Son of a Beach]

PS. I can understand (at least partially) PWS reasons for not wanting some things to be shown on maps, so I wasn't questioning their trying to have them removed from maps - after all the parks are their responsibility not the maps. What I was questioning is whether their wishes should be complied with by TASMAP, if such requests do not accurately reflect topographic reality, since the maps are their responsibility, not the parks. Now of course both are government agencies, and some cooperation is expected. Which leads me to another way of presenting my original thoughts to myself on the subject:

Should political reality override topographic reality on a topographic map?

There may not be a black and white answer to this. I think it's obvious that sometimes I think it should not, but I'm not suggesting that there is one universal answer to this question. Perhaps there are some times that it really is better that way. I'm curious to hear what others think of this though.

[ILUVSWTAS]

On an even less serious note, Nik has started off a new version of WHERE AM I.. instead it's, WHERE IS THE SCREEN SHOT OF THIS MAP FROM.......

For what it's worth, I think if there is a track there, it should be shown on the maps.

[Son of a Beach]

On an even less serious note, Nik has started off a new version of WHERE AM I.. instead it's, WHERE IS THE SCREEN SHOT OF THIS MAP FROM.......

I like it!

For what it's worth, I think if there is a track there, it should be shown on the maps.

ah... but what do you mean by "track"?

[ILUVSWTAS]

Hmmm interesting, how do define a track, Well like Oll says, if it's signposted, it should be marked. If it's maintained by parks there's no reason it shouldnt be on maps? Some tracks like the one to Bobs, I dont think is cared for by Parks at all, yet appears on maps.

You've opended an interesting topic here Nik.

[sthughes]

In my opinion Class 5 tracks should be shown if the info is available, but Tasmap shouldn't go out of their way spending heaps to get it and compile it.

Class 6 tracks are hardly tracks anyway (in most peoples eyes) so that should be left off.

No excuse for huts and other items to be excluded, you can end up in all sorts of bother trying to navigate if you find something that isn't on the map that ordinarily you would expect to be. It can be very disorienting if you catch my drift.

Okay secret military bases (like the one near the Arthurs) can be left off, but I think a note along the lines of "some detail omitted in this area" or similar should be noted.

[tastrax]

..... I expect a map to show me what I would expect to see if I was standing on the ground. If there is a distinct foot pad, or by occasional markers on the trees, ground, rocks, etc when I'm actually there, then I would expect to see it marked on the map. If there is nothing in particular to see on the ground when there in person, then I would not expect to see it on the map. Anything else is distinctly misleading, whether for good reasons or not.

Thats the dilemma...

PWS has two track classifications - one which is descriptive (what its like on the ground) and prescriptive (what the desired level actually is). In many cases these do not match. The problem comes when a "route" turns into a "pad" and then a "track". Under one logic this would mean that as it becomes a "pad" (seen on the ground) then it goes on the map...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.

[tastrax]

More on the (prescriptive) track classifications here.

http://www.wyatt-family.com/phil/parks.htm

[tastrax]

.....Some tracks like the one to Bobs, I dont think is cared for by Parks at all, yet appears on maps.

You've opend an interesting topic here Nik.

Bobs is an interesting one (like a couple of other unmentionable areas... ) - it slipped through the net when the 1:25 map was produced. Note that the "T4 Track" stops at Lake Sydney and the route beyond is not shown.

PS - There are no prizes for finding the other anomalies!

[sthughes]

I think it should be just like roads. They are shown even if they are only gravel. If everyone starts driving on it the government funds it's upgrade. Why can't walking tracks be the same? I know this might be a pipe dream but that's the way I think it should work. In comparison to roads walking tracks are only loose change anyway.

[tastrax]

I think it should be just like roads. They are shown even if they are only gravel. If everyone starts driving on it the government funds it's upgrade. Why can't walking tracks be the same? I know this might be a pipe dream but that's the way I think it should work. In comparison to roads walking tracks are only loose change anyway.

Are you running in the election? - I would vote for that if it was core promise

Alas that is not quite how it works at the moment....highland roads, midland highway?

[ILUVSWTAS]

Good on you for participating in this Phil. And thanks for putting all the info on here for people to browse, some of the stuff on your link is very interesting, if not a bit looong in places.

Im guessing even if we did guess the other abnormalites, you wouldnt tell us.

[Ent]

Hi

My view is clear, Maps are to be maps not political statements of some elitist would be ruler of the Universe department. For example, where is Whiteley Hut on the Lake MacKenize map? Why was it removed? I would be fascinated to find out what was the process used to eliminate huts and tracks. Not happy Jan.

Cheers Brett

[Liamy77]

perhaps we need to correlate some of these details done up in a list with co-ordinates like the list of highplaces? - "huts and emergency shelters" perhaps?
if PWS doesn't want an area used then restrict it and mark that on the map with the details they would otherwise omit!
i would rather rescue myself than get lost with a innacurate map and wait for search and rescue to rock up with a REAL map?!
but at the same time i tend to think there are also a lot of idiots around so i can understand why they wanna play dictator (even if we are supposed to be a democracy) .....


Maybe it would be even better if they could print a "YOU ARE HERE" sign on it!!

[Son of a Beach]

Thanks Phil for being willing to participate and provide all this information.

I don't intent to tread on toes or upset anyone, but I'm genuinely curious.

I also understand that my preferences don't alway line up with "the greater good", by anyone else's definition of "greater good".

Does PWS have any particular policy for huts being shown on maps, or sway with Tasmap regarding them? I'm guessing there is probably a policy (or informal internal preference) for publicity of huts that aligns them with the tracks/routes that would be used to access them.

[walkinTas]

I'm not keen to see class 5 and 6 tracks on maps. Yes, when you are trying to work out how to get to and from an area, it would be nice if every track was on the map. But, National Parks aren't primarily about people or tourism or bushwalking - these are the secondary industry. So conservation and management of parks isn't always about providing people with access. It is often about setting aside an area to protect the plants and animals that live there.

...however the non disclosure of some information is a management technique used by many agencies to help protect fragile ecosystems, recreational experiences or cultural sites

Necessary, essential, sensible management.

[ILUVSWTAS]

I do agree with you walkingtas. And quite frankly if someone is going into an area with a classification as such, they should know how to navigate themselves to wherever they are going without the need of a track.

[Son of a Beach]

For instance, the topo map on listmap (I presume it's the same source as Tasmap) doesn't list the Mt Murchison track. And yet there's a big official sign at the start. There seem to be a lot of official tracks not listed, which is unhelpful to us poor walkers. Probably good for the numbers on BW.com though...

On a slightly different theme, I've seen some map entries that seem to me to be purely government propaganda, but who can say for sure. I'm thinking in particular of the network of tracks marked on at least one version of the 1:25,000 maps around the Lylell Highway near the Raglan Range area (on both sides of the highway). There several tracks, most with several branches, all labelled as "walking tracks". Two of them appear to have actual destinations, but most appear to be aimless wandering. If you actually visit those sites, you'll find that they are old bulldozer tracks, and that nobody would be interested in walking most of them at all, and that some are very overgrown, and unlikely to be ever maintained. Somebody more enlightened than I told me the obvious: They are exploratory bulldozer tracks left over from searching out the best places to dam the Franklin River. Apparently some of them needed to be made temporarily good enough to get a 4wd car up for the sake of the politicians to get a good view of what they wanted to do. A couple of them do get some walking use, but I think that many of them never would. I would have thought it would be more accurate to label them as vehicular tracks (they are very wide), but I guess they don't want to encourage people to try to get cars onto them. "Bulldozer Tracks" would certainly not look at all nice. "Walking Tracks" is the most politically correct, it seems, but still not accurate for some of them.

Sorry, a bit off-topic there.

[Son of a Beach]

I'm not keen to see class 5 and 6 tracks on maps.

Yes, I totally agree with this. I would hesitate to even call these "tracks". I think class 6 basically means no real visual track at all (ie, just a "route" by my definition rather than a "track"), and class 5 means that it is an indistinct track (ie, not always visible, and not very visible, for at least much of the way).

As these are largely not visible (or barely visible) on the ground, I would not want to see them on the map. In fact putting such "tracks" on the map could be misleading or even dangerous. The image I posted above shows what I would regard as a class 5 route (not sure of PWS classification of it), and it is shown on one map, but not on the adjoining map. If it was shown on both maps, I suspect it would have the potential for people to get themselves in a lot of trouble thinking they could easily follow that route right through, instead of it just disappearing at the edge of the map.

[walkinTas]

To answer your original question Nik, should PWS be able to influence what Tasmaps put on a map? I think is more likely that government policy would be the influence. If it government policy not to tell people, then I guess they don't get told. Least not by government agencies. But private individuals can make there own call - and do, as the many books on the subject will testify.

I agree with what others have said about safety too. If you are walking around with a map that says there is no hut and no track, and you suddenly come across a track to a hut, then you are going to be more than a bit confused. On the other hand, there are not enough helicopters in Tasmania for us to go encouraging every DH in creation to wander aimlessly along tracks that are hard to find and harder to follow.

[Liamy77]

...

I agree with what others have said about safety too. If you are walking around with a map that says there is no hut and no track, and you suddenly come across a track to a hut, then you are going to be more than a bit confused. On the other hand, there are not enough helicopters in Tasmania for us to go encouraging every DH in creation to wander aimlessly along tracks that are hard to find and harder to follow.

Still... WE have all made it home so far... touch wood

[ILUVSWTAS]

There's an interesting one on Snowy North as well, A track is shown on the map, but it is not where the actual track is.
It's only from some people in the HWC and by chance that when SBS TR and I did it we found the track! We wandered around for nearly an hour looking for the start, turns out it was about 500metres away from where it is marked on the map.

[Azza]

I guess the thing to keep in mind is that a lot of tracks aren't acurately marked on maps in the first place.

There are several well know examples. e.g. I think the current Frenchmans Cap track is out by 1/2km in one of the map series.
Have they fixed the Farmhouse Creek - Cracroft Crossing one yet?

What are the implications of having a track marked incorrectly if some gets lost because of it?
At least the other way around if you're not expecting it and happen across a track, well thats a pleasant surprise.

I reckon more and more is going to disappear from the maps over time.

[north-north-west]

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

I'm with Brett; maps should be accurate and to hell with the politics.

[Ent]

There is a serious safety issue of not putting tracks on maps and more annoyance that huts get missed. More than once I have bailed out of a walk by an escape route and would hate to think that my only option in difficult weather or confronting a flooded crossing was to navigate by contour lines when an established track is around. A good example of this stupidity was Western Bluff. Forestry put a very well marked track in but it was knocked of the map so not been able to find the start we bush bashed upwards until coming to the old hut site then found the established track which we followed up and back down. The same with the track to Lake Myrtle via Jackson Creek. It also appeared once to be a very well cut track but has disappeared from the maps.

As for people using the maps to walk the areas I put forward the same argument used in traffic management. It is often better to allow traffic to spread over a wide variety of routes in suburban areas rather than channel it into over crowded priority roads. In fact, it is such areas that us locals now tend to head driven away by the madding crowd and increasing fees from our traditional walks. A good point is say Blizzard Plains and the Lodden Plains. The low foot traffic on Blizzard Plains means it has largely escaped the three foot deep paths that have been cut across the Lodden Plains. The track to Lake Meston again has enough traffic to keep it open but not turn it into a mud bath. Surely is it not better for traffic to be spread across a wide area. As for sensitive areas I think more often than not that is the ego of a person in department responsible for removing huts and tracks

As for the overly optimistic there are plenty of books and track notes for them to use and misuse. You are not going to stop a person from a warm climate egged on by friends from attempting walks in remote areas. Best they have a map with accurate information on it. 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"

Cheers Brett