Lophophaps wrote:...........The guideline suggested to me that appeals is as follows:
“IF the thread is about the walk AS a section of the AAWT, then it ideally should be in the AAWT section. If it's just a walk and totally independent of its AAWT status, then it doesn't matter. For instance, someone traversing the Baw Baw for a weekender is just a walk. Your trip was intended as an AAWT section walk.”.................
Mark F wrote:Could I suggest that 8 stickies make getting to new and more dynamic threads a bit awkward especially if you are using a small screen device. Perhaps only 3 for the major sections - Walhalla - Hotham, Hotham-Thredbo and Thredbo-Tharwa.
neilmny wrote:Lophophaps this approach makes good sense to me.
On the subject of shifting a walk on the Baw Baws just because it's partly on the AAWT.
This could make it less straight forward to access for someone new wanting to research walking on the Baw Baws. The same would go for a walk from Hotham to Dibbins or Cope Hut to Mt Nelse and so and so on.
Mark F wrote:On the subject of what constitutes a walk on the AAWT, most people doing a section seem to do one or more of the larger sections Walhalla-Hotham, Hotham-Thredbo or Thredbo-Tharwa. Only having trip reports for these 10+ day sections would minimise any issues about the purpose of the trip and would limit any issues about where a trip report would be posted. I suspect that most people seeking information on the AAWT are really more interested in information about the less visited areas rather the Barries (other than water), Bogong High Plains or Main Range so lots of short trip reports along the well visited areas is not particularly useful to AAWT walkers.
Mark F wrote:Could I suggest that 8 stickies make getting to new and more dynamic threads a bit awkward especially if you are using a small screen device. Perhaps only 3 for the major sections - Walhalla - Hotham, Hotham-Thredbo and Thredbo-Tharwa.
madmacca wrote:I agree with limiting them to just 3 major sections, although I would name them Walhalla-Rumpff-Hotham, Hotham-Taylors Crossing-Thredbo, and Thredbo-Kiandra-Tharwa. I suspect that many section walkers may break it down into 6 x 1 week walks, with these as the intermediate access points. Or just logical resupply points every 110 km.
Lophophaps wrote:
For many, a week of walking will be nine days, two weekends. Should the minimum be seven or nine days, or something else?
walkon wrote:I see where you are coming from. I know a number of people who have done it in week sections but I would hate to exclude the northern Tharwa-Kiandra and Kiandrh-Thredbo sections or any other legs if done in 6 days or less, which isn't hard btw. If you have to have something at all, which I'm not keen on, distance would be a better measure. That way it cover those who put in big km's and do sections in a shorter time frame.
Mark F wrote:I think it is sensible to consider trip reports on the 6 segments of 7+- days are realistically AAWT material. The recent addition to the "Walkon on the AAWT" thread re Kiandra-Thredbo is evidence of that - really should be split to a separate thread. In sorting out the threads, threads that drift to the AAWT should stay where they are, but those that start with the AAWT should most probably be moved/copied over assuming they remain largely on topic, especially those that cover the logistical aspects of the walk.
north-north-west wrote:Given the number of alternative routes (especially for KNP) I reckon the three word versions would be best.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest