ollster wrote:Son of a Beach wrote:If it's a "recognised track", then it's fair game.
What if there's a track "most of the way"? Like say Leonard's Tarn?
I don't really know that area, so can't comment and would have to rely on your judgement (if you posted) and on that of any others that responded or complained. Basically if anyone is able to put forward a reasonable argument for why an area is both too sensitive and trackless, then I'd listen.
There's been very few cases here that have caused any significant disagreement on whether a location fits the rules. I can only think of one, off the top of my head.
Also, the rules don't forbid discussion, only details. So either way, details of the existing track are fine, and followed by "then use the map to find the rest of the way", would be no problem.
Again, how much detail is appropriate is difficult to define, and therefore difficult to moderate, and I'm open to persuasion either way on a case-by-case basis. But as before, there's only been one case in the past that I can think of that ended up being controversial in terms of differing opinions.
PS. Note that the particular rule in question is there as a guideline rather than a law. Ie, we're not likely to jump on people like a ton of bricks for breaching this rule (unless we have reason to believe they're being deliberately provocative). However, we do expect people to take the rule into account when using the forums, and aim to post appropriately. So in general, problem posts are likely to be edited (or possibly removed) in order to bring them into compliance (and a PM sent so the author is aware of what has happened), but no actual disciplinary action is likely to be taken (ie, no bannings or even warnings).