johnw wrote:
And actually looks like Tassie has started doing it (but strangely not for the OLT):
https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=47194
Nuts wrote:johnw wrote:And actually looks like Tassie has started doing it (but strangely not for the OLT):
https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/file.aspx?id=47194
Ha, went looking and ended reading their entire advice again, doing so, it occurred to me that this was an example of very good track grade advice.
Your link isn't working for me John.
Nuts wrote:Ha, there we go. Thanks. Might as well assign the OT if others are..
So, do we agree, The OT is a solid Grade 3?
Son of a Beach wrote:Grading tracks is quite tricky. That grade system in the image posted by Tastrax refers to track surface and steepness. It doesn't seem to take any other factors into account. Which is OK, so long as people appreciate that there are other factors to consider.
Eg, perhaps some people would consider the Overland Track to be "hard" simply because it takes more than two days? Or because it is often very cold? I don't know if factors such as these should be considered or not. Perhaps that would be the difference between a track grade and a walk grade.
Mechanic-AL wrote:Maybe its not the track that should be graded but the walkers ? John Chapman's books already do this in a way.
" This track is suitable for experienced walking parties with off track navigation skills"........etc. etc.
If the walkers were graded from ' 2 pack a day asthmatic shufflers with dodgy knees' right through to 'Off track navigation guru's' then the people contemplating the walks simply have to *&^%$#@! their own skill level as opposed to making a judgement on track notes that don't relate to somebody with their of their own personal skill set.
north-north-west wrote:Mechanic-AL wrote:Maybe its not the track that should be graded but the walkers ? John Chapman's books already do this in a way.
" This track is suitable for experienced walking parties with off track navigation skills"........etc. etc.
If the walkers were graded from ' 2 pack a day asthmatic shufflers with dodgy knees' right through to 'Off track navigation guru's' then the people contemplating the walks simply have to *&^%$#@! their own skill level as opposed to making a judgement on track notes that don't relate to somebody with their of their own personal skill set.
What about off-track gurus with dodgy knees?
Snooze wrote:Could this be related to insurance/liability issues? If they describe the track as "hard" or "for advanced walkers", and someone gets injured in a fall, wouldn't that reduce any compensation owed?
Mechanic-AL wrote:Maybe its not the track that should be graded but the walkers ? John Chapman's books already do this in a way.
" This track is suitable for experienced walking parties with off track navigation skills"........etc. etc.
If the walkers were graded from ' 2 pack a day asthmatic shufflers with dodgy knees' right through to 'Off track navigation guru's' then the people contemplating the walks simply have to *&^%$#@! their own skill level as opposed to making a judgement on track notes that don't relate to somebody with their of their own personal skill set.
Users browsing this forum: kRaydenH and 50 guests