Nuts wrote:Apologies to nnw and Gaye, I had no idea the first edition had been endorsed by P&W (how does one know? maybe i'd forgotten or never taken an interest in the first place) and thought they were railing against the idea of policy constraints rather than supporting the process (which maybe they knew had taken place). Still seems to come back to whatever policy interpretation will be acceptable or popular rather than any line in the sand.
I wouldn't say it was 'endorsed' by Parks but at the time we were very active in talking to authors to get them to tone down details on remote, untracked areas. Bill obliged with those tracks, as did other authors like John Chapman. Parks were still not happy about this type of peak bagging type book and because it still had information on many remote areas it was never stocked in Parks visitor centres. I suspect its always a hard decision for the authors as it only takes one to not comply and the rest will simply walk away if they think they will lose any market share.
As many have stated, the internet now makes these types of policies very hard to maintain but as a guiding principle PWS still does not support publicising off track walking and remote 'tracks and pads' on maps. Yes, people can go there, but they should only do it after they have gained the required experience to manage themselves out there. Its all part of the mighty Recreational Opportunity Spectrum!