Discussion of Details of Sensitive Off-Track Locations

[Son of a Beach]

(This topic split off from here)

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...

There is no rule on this site about publishing details of tracked locations - sensitive or otherwise.

[ollster]

There is no rule on this site about publishing details of tracked locations - sensitive or otherwise.

Who's definition of "tracked"? We've found dozens of tracks not on Tasmap/listmap etc. Does that mean it's all good to add them to the walk descriptions?

(In reality, publishing info about access to sensitive areas that are NOT tracked will only aid people insane enough to walk off-track in Tassie anyway.)

[tasadam]

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...

There is no rule on this site about publishing details of tracked locations - sensitive or otherwise.

A clarification (I needed it myself after reading this response)
Rule 17 states

# Avoid posting detailed information on accessing sensitive areas without recognised tracks to public topics, but rather use private messages, email, or other non-public means to communicate such information instead. Feel free to ask questions about such areas publicly, so long as the post includes a reminder of this rule to get answers privately only.

[Son of a Beach]

There is no rule on this site about publishing details of tracked locations - sensitive or otherwise.

Who's definition of "tracked"? We've found dozens of tracks not on Tasmap/listmap etc. Does that mean it's all good to add them to the walk descriptions?

(In reality, publishing info about access to sensitive areas that are NOT tracked will only aid people insane enough to walk off-track in Tassie anyway.)

I don't think the rule is terribly ambiguous. If it's a "recognised track", then it's fair game. Now "recognised by whom?" is still a reasonable question. Certainly if it's on a map, then it's recognised by Tasmap. If you think the track is recognised by the bushwalking community in general as a track (and not just as a route, or an interesting way to go), then it's fair game. If somebody else disagrees, then the moderators will need to make a judgement call on whether or not the information should remain on the public forum.

Essentially, if the community of members here (including moderators) feel that somebody has posted too much detail of a sensitive area that (at least some of) the bushwalking community thinks is not a recognised track, then the post will be reviewed by moderators and some sort of judgement call will have to be made.

PS. In this regard, a forum post is only a problem if the location/route it discusses is both sensitive and trackless.

PPS. The rule (as quoted by Tasadam above) is aimed at achieving a reasonable balance between good access to information, and promoting protection of as-yet-undamaged areas. Of course we can't be certain how much impact this has in terms of protection, but some of us believe that it is worth trying.

[ollster]

I think you're assuming that the information is available in the first place?

You know as well as I do that there is plenty of stuff "they're" not letting on that "they" know about.

Olle!!! I think seeking advice on routes is all well and fine. Publishing "this is the way" will mean its not going to be off track walking for much longer.

All the times I've ever sought "advice" I've gotten fairly good general descriptions of the way to go. People trade the information in the bushwalking "underground" freely and openly, but actually publishing it is a no-no?

If people all go the same *&%$#! way because everyone knows it's the way to go and everyone shares that information freely (but doesn't publish) we still have the same situation. All we're doing is stopping the people too lazy to ask around.

It's all a bit precious. Should we just describe trips by changing all the location names, such as certain Wild contributors have done?

[ILUVSWTAS]

It's all a bit precious. Should we just describe trips by changing all the location names, such as certain Wild contributors have done?

As in Mt Cameron adventure world??

[ollster]

As in Mt Cameron adventure world??

What can I say? It had a swingset and a flying fox!

[ollster]

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?

[ILUVSWTAS]

As in Mt Cameron adventure world??

What can I say? It had a swingset and a flying fox!

No I agree. It was one of the most fun walks i've done!

[Nuts]

does it have cafe? is porters there for us? accommodation, 5 or only 4*? can you give map please?

actually ive also been wondering about the mention of sneaking across private property for peaks to be bagged...

[Son of a Beach]

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).

[ILUVSWTAS]

There is accomodation for Scottsdale High students. They have a lovely building there
Not sure about porters, and the cafe is a BYO everything. The campground (at Monarch Flats) did have a bbq plate though, and there is LOTS of wild ducks around....

Map?? sure....

[Nuts]

Har Har, is that thick red line the route? hate to break the bad news.... (sorry, was thinking this gets a bit silly)

see, pardon my lack of points, but to me isnt the challenge to looking at a map (such as that), having a look and deciding on the best route part of the challenge. Probably where you'll find any existing track anyhow?

with other concerns, maps making things easy (dont go so far) or safe (dont go at all) what else is there?

[Son of a Beach]

(Note that further follow ups to the Mt Cameron discussion have been moved to the Mt Cameron topic).

[walkinTas]

PPS. The rule (as quoted by Tasadam above) is aimed at achieving a reasonable balance between good access to information, and promoting protection of as-yet-undamaged areas. Of course we can't be certain how much impact this has in terms of protection, but some of us believe that it is worth trying.

If people all go the same *&%$#! way because everyone knows it's the way to go and everyone shares that information freely (but doesn't publish) we still have the same situation. All we're doing is stopping the people too lazy to ask around.

It's all a bit precious. Should we just describe trips by changing all the location names, such as certain Wild contributors have done?

I know there are folk who are for publishing, and folk who are against it. And there are plenty of books with lots of information about accessing some very sensitive areas if you wish to take the time to read them.

I think both the comments above are correct. Firstly it is about "a reasonable balance between good access to information, and promoting protection..." and yes it can seem "a bit precious" when people seem to be hoarding information that is generally well known in the bushwalking community anyway. I think it is worth considering whether we have a responsibility to protect the places where we walk. If we don't make a reasonable effort to do so, we can only blame ourselves when its all gone. "All gone" might sound like a bit of an exaggeration, but if you do a few google searches you'll find plenty of discussion papers on wilderness areas that are under threat because of over use. You don't need to google either. There are areas here in Tasmania that are suffering from over use.