Bushwalk Australia

https://mntviews.blogspot.com/2017/10/goochs-crater-friday-canyon-dargan-arch.html
Above link has photographs & trip report on a circuit walk to:
- Goochs Crater
- Friday Canyon
- Dargan Arch
in the Blue Mountains.

Should be one of the iconic walks in the Blue Mountains !

Goochs Crater
A natural crater-like swamp feature, not volcanic in origin, ringed by pagoda-like rock formations


Friday Canyon
Nick Collins, Freda Moxom and I stumbled into this canyon during a bushwalk.
Subsequently, I registered the name "Friday Canyon" in BushExplorers encyclopaedia:
https://www.bushexplorers.com.au/encyclopaedia/friday-canyon


Dargan Arch
A sandstone arch formed out of the collapse of a cave/overhang

Very comprehensive and detailed report (blog spot). Giving away too much can lead to areas being trashed by people who do not understand how to look after them. Something to consider. Seems like a nice place and very typical of that area. The only other thing I would say is I would call that canyon a dry canyon. No swimming. Maybe waist deep I would call wet for a bushwalk but we have done so called dry canyons in winter which had waist deep wades also.

It is a lovely area, but it is part of the Wollangambe Wilderness, and I would urge you not to provide detailed grid references or route descriptions, as that does tend to result in track formation and damage to delicate pagodas and the like.

I had a chuckle when you wrote "All the heavy weights in NSW bushwalking community haven't been to this place and also unaware of it ". Not sure who these "heavy weights" are. I recall visiting that canyon in 2009, ironically with Michael Keats, one of the Bush Explorers! It was known to others well before that, since it already had a name (and not Friday Canyon)!

The Bush Explorer Encyclopedia makes an unfortunate habit of retro-naming places that already have other names in bushwalking circles. People don't necessarily want the names publicised since, as per my first sentence, it often results in places getting trashed.

+1 for everything Tom said!

Last time we were in Gooches Crater, you had to stay right on the periphery as the middle was definitely full of swampy water.

Cheers
Roger

rcaffin wrote:Last time we were in Gooches Crater, you had to stay right on the periphery as the middle was definitely full of swampy water.

I still regret being sick / hungover so not joining others in a swim / skinny dip when we were there. I didn't realise at the time just how rare it is to see the crater full of water. It's definitely on my list to return following a major rain event.

tom_brennan wrote:... an unfortunate habit of retro-naming places that already have other names in bushwalking circles.

If those in the inner sanctum are keeping their names private, they can't be surprised that other people come up with their own names for those same features.

I have encountered the same situation in Central Australia, where a prominent member of the Alice Springs bushwalking community berates us New South Welshmen for using our own names for "their" features. But will he tell us his preferred names? No!

ribuck wrote:If those in the inner sanctum are keeping their names private, they can't be surprised that other people come up with their own names for those same features.

+1

There are probably Aboriginal names for at least some of these places. A question of if you can find them too.

My issue with the Bush Explorers is that they usually know the existing names, but just like their own ones better. I've got no issue with people using private names to refer to places, but when you then publish an "encyclopedia" of place names featuring them (not to mention even trying to have them formally gazetted) then the whole things has the whiff of ego-driven colonial explorers.

In a world where the internet never forgets, and things are easily searchable, many people are deliberately careful to avoid publishing place names -- especially in wilderness areas -- to ensure others have the same opportunities to explore and discover. I share that view, and actively avoid publishing names of places that are not well known.

I also agree with Warin's statement. I would love to see an effort put into working with relevant First Nations to discover the original place names and publish them (where culturally appropriate to do so). There are examples around Australia where this has happened, but there's a lot more effort required. I'd much rather know the name and story of a place that has been shared over thousands of years rather than what some bushwalker thought it should be called during a five minute visit!

FatCanyoner wrote:I also agree with Warin's statement. I would love to see an effort put into working with relevant First Nations to discover the original place names and publish them (where culturally appropriate to do so). There are examples around Australia where this has happened, but there's a lot more effort required. I'd much rather know the name and story of a place that has been shared over thousands of years rather than what some bushwalker thought it should be called during a five minute visit!

Exactly!

I often give names to places I visit that aren't named on my maps, but they're just for personal reference.
And even where the old names are lost, it would be better to ask existing traditional custodians to chose a new one if they wish, rather than impose our meaningless babble on places their ancestors have been visiting for millennia.

ribuck wrote:If those in the inner sanctum are keeping their names private, they can't be surprised that other people come up with their own names for those same features.

I'm happy to provide names to people, as long as they don't publicise them. Publicising of names and locations - particularly to areas that are only an hour or two's walk from roads - promotes track formation and damage to features.

Having been burnt a few times before, I'm probably more circumspect now about who I provide info to.

Not that different an approach to the bushwalk.com site itself, which states (in the Rules):
"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. "

I just feel that the cat is well out of the bag with the publication of "The Gardens of Stone National Park and Beyond" series of books.
(Book 4, chapter 4.3 already has a detailed description of the route to Goochs Crater and the relevant Grid Ref points.)

As to the "heavy weights" who didn't know about Friday Canyon ...
Better not to incriminate them by mentioning their names here
Suffice to say BushExplores accepted my account and registered the name
In hindsight, I should have checked with the gurus in this forum ... sorry my fault

paul8 wrote:I just feel that the cat is well out of the bag with the publication of "The Gardens of Stone National Park and Beyond" series of books.
(Book 4, chapter 4.3 already has a detailed description of the route to Goochs Crater and the relevant Grid Ref points.)

Goochs Crater is a well known feature with a track to it from the north. But removing detailed grid references to "Friday Canyon" would be feasible.

paul8 wrote:Suffice to say BushExplores accepted my account and registered the name

I'm sure they can deregister the name just as easily!

Tom, you wrote: "removing detailed grid references to "Friday Canyon" would be feasible."

In "The Gardens of Stone National Park and Beyond" series of books,
and in the book "Blue Mountains Geographical Encyclopaedia" by the same authors,
and in BushExplorer's encyclopaedia website https://www.bushexplorers.com.au/encyclopaedia.htm ,
hundreds if not thousands of place names with their grid references are made public.
What is so special about "Friday Canyon" that its location should be kept secret ?

I can understand your view for not letting the public know about all the wonderful places.
But this view is not shared by the authors in the above mentioned books and website.

It is best if you and the authors come to a consensus.
If your view prevails, then the BushExplorer's encyclopaedia website would be shut down.
The book "Blue Mountains Geographical Encyclopaedia" would be reprinted without revealing the location of the places.
And similar reprints for "The Gardens of Stone National Park and Beyond" series of books.
And naturally anyone who has a website should remove grid references too