Mon 26 Jul, 2010 11:00 am
ollster wrote:This complaining about censoring the maps to stop people going to "place x" seems to be in direct opposition to the policies implemented on this site, which discourages/moderates posting information about access to sensitive areas?![]()
Can't have it both ways...
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 11:13 am
Son of a Beach wrote:There is no rule on this site about publishing details of tracked locations - sensitive or otherwise.
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 11:30 am
Son of a Beach wrote:ollster wrote:AND ANOTHER THING! This complaining about censoring the maps to stop people going to "place x" seems to be in direct opposition to the policies implemented on this site, which discourages/moderates posting information about access to sensitive areas?![]()
Can't have it both ways...
There is no rule on this site about publishing details of tracked locations - sensitive or otherwise.
# 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.
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 11:46 am
ollster wrote:Son of a Beach wrote:There is no rule on this site about publishing details of tracked locations - sensitive or otherwise.
Who's definition of "tracked"?We've found dozens of tracks not on Tasmap/listmap etc. Does that mean it's all good to add them to the walk descriptions?
(In reality, publishing info about access to sensitive areas that are NOT tracked will only aid people insane enough to walk off-track in Tassie anyway.)
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 12:38 pm
aljscott wrote:I think you're assuming that the information is available in the first place?
aljscott wrote:Olle!!! I think seeking advice on routes is all well and fine. Publishing "this is the way" will mean its not going to be off track walking for much longer.
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 1:05 pm
ollster wrote:
It's all a bit precious. Should we just describe trips by changing all the location names, such as certain Wild contributors have done?
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 1:11 pm
ILUVSWTAS wrote:As in Mt Cameron adventure world??
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 1:15 pm
Son of a Beach wrote:If it's a "recognised track", then it's fair game.
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 1:16 pm
ollster wrote:ILUVSWTAS wrote:As in Mt Cameron adventure world??
What can I say? It had a swingset and a flying fox!
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 1:20 pm
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 1:22 pm
ollster wrote:Son of a Beach wrote:If it's a "recognised track", then it's fair game.
What if there's a track "most of the way"? Like say Leonard's Tarn?
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 1:24 pm
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 1:36 pm
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 2:06 pm
Mon 26 Jul, 2010 11:22 pm
Son of a Beach wrote:PPS. The rule (as quoted by Tasadam above) is aimed at achieving a reasonable balance between good access to information, and promoting protection of as-yet-undamaged areas. Of course we can't be certain how much impact this has in terms of protection, but some of us believe that it is worth trying.
ollster wrote:If people all go the same *&%$#! way because everyone knows it's the way to go and everyone shares that information freely (but doesn't publish) we still have the same situation. All we're doing is stopping the people too lazy to ask around.
It's all a bit precious. Should we just describe trips by changing all the location names, such as certain Wild contributors have done?
© Bushwalk Australia and contributors 2007-2013.