tastrax wrote:...rather than taking the time to discover the environment on its own terms.
Zone-5 wrote:No, you're just another forum bully with 'delusions of grandeur'..
wildwalks wrote:Come on tastrax that seems a bit rough.
Many bushwalker use guidebooks and tracknotes. It is not uncommon for these to mention where you can get water, where there is good camping, cliffs and slippery screes to be careful of.
This seems to be to be simply a way of sharing this kind on of information in geographic way rather then as words on a page.
This is not desiring handholding - just suggesting that formation can be create, share and used in a new and maybe even better??? way.
Matt
tastrax wrote:But why the duplication? - its on maps, its in guidebooks,
tastrax wrote:I personally feel that the more we create these snippets for people the less they actually get out and smell the roses, take in the views and be at one with nature. The expectation builds that EVERY piece of information they require should be at their fingertips when they are out there.
tastrax wrote:Next thing you know there will be sounds going off in the bush as a proximity alarm goes off as you go near a cliff, a babbling brook sound as you get near a creek, a WOW as you get to a lookout, a chirp chirp as you get to a birds nest......
tastrax wrote:Chuck it all away and use your senses.
wildwalks wrote:Many bushwalker use guidebooks and tracknotes. It is not uncommon for these to mention where you can get water, where there is good camping, cliffs and slippery screes to be careful of.
This seems to be to be simply a way of sharing this kind on of information in geographic way rather then as words on a page.
This is not desiring handholding - just suggesting that formation can be create, share and used in a new and maybe even better??? way.
Matt
doogs wrote:wildwalks wrote:Many bushwalker use guidebooks and tracknotes. It is not uncommon for these to mention where you can get water, where there is good camping, cliffs and slippery screes to be careful of.
This seems to be to be simply a way of sharing this kind on of information in geographic way rather then as words on a page.
This is not desiring handholding - just suggesting that formation can be create, share and used in a new and maybe even better??? way.
Matt
..and (in Tasmania) these guidebook authors have listened to to the policies put in place by the land management team at the Parks and Wildlife service leaving any notes on remote areas deliberately vague but with enough information to assist someone on whether that trip would suit them. When Nik started this forum as a Tasmanian only bushwalking site he put in place rule number 24 which again follows these P&W policies, this rule still stands out to me as the most important one. But now you would like to disregard these for the possible expansion of your online bushwalking presence??
perfectlydark wrote:So personal judgements and attacks as you have made aside, so areas that are not closed off (ie free to access by anyone) should still only be for special people like yourself. Noone else has any right to be there. That seems like your argument doogs?
neilmny wrote:Doogs,
I am waiting to be educated by the elite as to how some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment.
neilmny wrote:I repeat - I am waiting to be educated as to how some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment.
No one who disagrees with you guys is suggesting unfettered delivery of information on fragile places what we are suggesting is some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water anywhere not the *&%$#! Tasmanian wilderness.
Take your blinkers of fellas and read all the post/s not just the words that you don't like!
Is this some kind of joke I've gotten caught up in.
neilmny wrote: some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment.
Nuts wrote:neilmny wrote: some points of interest, some alerts to hazards and some reliable locations of water is detrimental to the environment.
Points of interest assumes you know the consequences of placing that point.
Alerts to hazards? Part of the learning process taken away?
Reliable water? Take that as gospel?
perfectlydark wrote:Mate that would be good but you get no help here anymore. Polite and friendly often results in condescending and discouraging.
neilmny wrote:
You are assuming anyone other than the elite does know the consequences.
Learning process........so what, some people just want to get out there.
Reliable water.....hence the term reliable water....there are places with reliable water.
The reference to tastrax "educational link".........there are other places besides Tasmania there is a whole world out there guys.
Nuts wrote:neilmny wrote:
You are assuming anyone other than the elite does know the consequences.
Learning process........so what, some people just want to get out there.
Reliable water.....hence the term reliable water....there are places with reliable water.
The reference to tastrax "educational link".........there are other places besides Tasmania there is a whole world out there guys.
No, sadly, tediously, we live in a world where systems are placed to suit the lowest common denominator (so to speak), we all pay the price. You may very well be capable of judging what points to give away and what could be a 'reliable' water source. I'd imagine some others whacking GPS points up simply in google eyed amazement at their new toy- it's so easy!
Iv'e acknowledged, as have some others that it could be a different level of concern on the mainland. If nobody will speak against it then that is what you'll get! I can only relate this to our tracks and the most popular ones at that. Most people are fine but it's not hard to see how it wouldn't take many at all to grandstand their version of what is acceptable if it means simply copying a set of co-ordinates. More likely instant uploads to sites such as this.. with even less need to stop and consider the consequences.
matt has a historic, progressive opportunity- to either work this out or say no... the issue has been lurking a lot longer than this particular thread. If it's too hard to get across the subtle concerns of a change and no input to resolve how such info can be regulated (for credibility or consequences) then yep, 'just not in Tassie' is fine by me.
neilmny wrote:The reference to tastrax "educational link".........there are other places besides Tasmania there is a whole world out there guys.
Nuts wrote:I'd vote to hold on to the way things are. Not without resignation that change is inevitable, I would be interested in a 'solution'. I just can't see anything positive in handing the reins from locals (everywhere) and land managers to (seemingly) butt-puckered technophiles
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests