Bushwalk Australia

This popped up on the mapporn subreddit.

All of Tasmania appears remote then

Is the map showing where the fabled inland sea is ? .....

Moondog55 wrote:All of Tasmania appears remote then

But there is nowhere in Tasmania that is Very Remote.

Doesn't say much for Bairnsdale.

MrWalker wrote:

Moondog55 wrote:All of Tasmania appears remote then

But there is nowhere in Tasmania that is Very Remote.

Well if you guys don't want King & Flinders Islands then vic will have them! They look the very remote color to me, when I cruised there in my boat it did seem very remote in a 25 footer.

Personally, I feel more remote in big cities. So many people...

Much prefer to be in the bush with a few friends.

davidmorr wrote:Personally, I feel more remote in big cities. So many people...

Much prefer to be in the bush with a few friends.

Until you fall down; break a leg and need an ambulance I agree but any place more than an hour or two by road from a decent hospital is remote in my opinion

wallwombat wrote:Doesn't say much for Bairnsdale.

Ha. I was in bairnsdale last week. Didn't seem to remote to me. People everywhere. Nice kids play ground down the bottom of the hill.

Good fun, but all mapping is scale dependant. This has obviously been conducted at a near to continent scale.
Within this mapping, if we zoomed in, would be plenty of unmapped pockets of remoteness that fit the classification but fell through the cracks of continent-scale coarse data,
So it doesn't really tell us much we didn't already know except maybe to suggest the boredom and sloppiness of some academics....
Steve

Happy Pirate: IIRC this system is postcode based.

icefest wrote:Happy Pirate: IIRC this system is postcode based.

I couldn't find any metadata (didn't look very hard) but I'd assume the postcode basis would be the output scale or search scale. The actual scale of the input data and interpolated cell size would be something different.
But looking at the legend it's only a measure of distance to a major service centre from any populated area so pretty much excludes wilderness remoteness from its analysis. By looking at some known isolated wilderness areas I can only assume their input data for populated areas is pretty dodgy. Much of the Blue Mountains, Kosciuszko and The Budawangs are within 2.4km of a service centre? By road. And nothing in Eastern Aus is beyond 5.92km? Even in Tassie?
Lies, damn lies, statistics and bored researchers (I've been one).
Steve

Happy Pirate wrote:And nothing in Eastern Aus is beyond 5.92km? Even in Tassie? Lies, damn lies, statistics and bored researchers (I've been one).
Steve

Yes that does sound a bit dodgy...maybe a better measure is distance to a Mcdonalds...(looks like glowing bacteria on an agar plate!)

LandSailor wrote:

Happy Pirate wrote:And nothing in Eastern Aus is beyond 5.92km? Even in Tassie? Lies, damn lies, statistics and bored researchers (I've been one).
Steve

Yes that does sound a bit dodgy...maybe a better measure is distance to a Mcdonalds...(looks like glowing bacteria on an agar plate!)

Happy Pirate wrote:

icefest wrote:Happy Pirate: IIRC this system is postcode based.

I couldn't find any metadata (didn't look very hard) but I'd assume the postcode basis would be the output scale or search scale. The actual scale of the input data and interpolated cell size would be something different.
But looking at the legend it's only a measure of distance to a major service centre from any populated area so pretty much excludes wilderness remoteness from its analysis. By looking at some known isolated wilderness areas I can only assume their input data for populated areas is pretty dodgy. Much of the Blue Mountains, Kosciuszko and The Budawangs are within 2.4km of a service centre? By road. And nothing in Eastern Aus is beyond 5.92km? Even in Tassie?
Lies, damn lies, statistics and bored researchers (I've been one).
Steve

Page 17 has a full discussion of the averaging system and the methodology: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/Downloa ... 6442459567

I only really relax when I'm at least two days drive out of Adelaide...

"I only really relax when I'm at least two days drive out of Adelaide"
Agreed. I ran away from home at 17 when I lived in Adelaide because I needed trees and rivers. Hitched to Byron Bay.... as you do.
Still can't work out why people live there out of choice....

Happy Pirate wrote:"I only really relax when I'm at least two days drive out of Adelaide"
Agreed. I ran away from home at 17 when I lived in Adelaide because I needed trees and rivers. Hitched to Byron Bay.... as you do.
Still can't work out why people live there out of choice....

Because it's better than Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong, Ipswich, Wodonga, Launceston . . .

You forgot Nar Nar Goon.............

Doesn't everybody?

north-north-west wrote:

Happy Pirate wrote:"I only really relax when I'm at least two days drive out of Adelaide"
Agreed. I ran away from home at 17 when I lived in Adelaide because I needed trees and rivers. Hitched to Byron Bay.... as you do.
Still can't work out why people live there out of choice....

Because it's better than Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong, Ipswich, Wodonga, Launceston . . .

I'd disagree with you about Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong, Ipswich, Wodonga, Launceston

These places have easy access to good wilderness.
Adelaide double plus doesn't
I ran away for a reason....
S

Happy Pirate wrote:Still can't work out why people live there out of choice....

...it is obvious that you haven't worked it out yet Steve! We don't mind not being popular, we like it that way...

I'm a desert walker. Red sand and flat horizons, artesian waters and isolation are my thing. Both the Simpson and Sturt's Stony deserts are my choice locations.

Zone-5 wrote:

Happy Pirate wrote:Still can't work out why people live there out of choice....

...it is obvious that you haven't worked it out yet Steve! We don't mind not being popular, we like it that way...

I'm a desert walker. Red sand and flat horizons, artesian waters and isolation are my thing. Both the Simpson and Sturt's Stony deserts are my choice locations.

And the BIG skies.................

Zone-5 wrote:

Happy Pirate wrote:Still can't work out why people live there out of choice....

...it is obvious that you haven't worked it out yet Steve! We don't mind not being popular, we like it that way...

I'm a desert walker. Red sand and flat horizons, artesian waters and isolation are my thing. Both the Simpson and Sturt's Stony deserts are my choice locations.

I get that. Those are amazing places.
But those places are a LONG way away. Even the Flinders is a big drive. I got PO'ed at not having anywhere decent within an hour's drive or so. Still see it every time I go back to visit family.
Weekend/overnight camping is poor for choice in Adelaide.
Shouldn't gloat but I'm currently 15 min drive from Kosciuszko NP.

Happy Pirate wrote:I got PO'ed at not having anywhere decent within an hour's drive or so. Still see it every time I go back to visit family.
Weekend/overnight camping is poor for choice in Adelaide.
Shouldn't gloat but I'm currently 15 min drive from Kosciuszko NP.

Yes I hear you and having lived in Sydney for a number of years i have to agree with you that the choice of terrains in NSW is very welcoming.

As for distance, well you should consider one of these...

Many yeras ago Jon Muir walked from Pt Augsuta to the identified geographic centre of Australia. Now that is a very remote place as was most of the route that he took. Does anyone have the coordinates for that location?

mikethepike wrote:Many yeras ago Jon Muir walked from Pt Augsuta to the identified geographic centre of Australia. Now that is a very remote place as was most of the route that he took. Does anyone have the coordinates for that location?

I dont have the coordinates but I have been there. The geographical centre of mainland Australia...Lamberts Centre.

25°36′36.4″S 134°21′17.3″E

Their criteria are a bit weird. They measure remoteness not by the presence/absence of roads and traffic, but by the distance to the closest cities and service stations. So a small island like Tasmania with a populated East coast is then mostly marked as not remote, while the Port Hedland/Karratha area is a remote one according to them. This map basically amounts to a density of population map. To us bushwalkers I think remoteness is more like "how easy would it be for you to get out of there ?" and in that sense, the Tassie SW wilderness is one of the worst obviously.