Tag: musing

  • Streetview on Great Walks

    Several days ago, Google announced that it has adapted its Streetview technology for use on most of New Zealand’s Great Walks (also from Stuff, and from the Herald). Thanks to some guy who was employed to walk most of them with an 18kg camera on his back, it’s now possible to see a glimpse of any point along the walks from a web browser.

    Crossing Awarua Inlet.

    Streetview has potential to be a very useful tool. I have a couple of concerns about how it’s come to be (mentioned below), but there are several potential uses which I like.

    The most obvious is simply being able to see a place without going there. Since Streetview on Great Walks was announced, I’ve seen this very advantage criticised in social media. It’s been declared a waste of time, or people have expressed outright offence that certain places which some consider to be personal experiences might suddenly be so easily available on the web to people who aren’t actually going there themselves. Popular media’s framing of the whole thing being about “armchair trampers” and little else has probably encouraged some of this view, but I’m sure there’s more to it than that.
    (more…)

  • More on the Collapsing Hopuruahine Bridge

    Today this video became very noticed in New Zealand media. It shows the moment in early September 2015 when the Hopuruahine Bridge collapsed along the Lake Waikaremoana Great Walk, with four people on it. I wrote about this earlier and linked to much of the earlier coverage.

    The latest coverage has been driven by the sudden availability of a video of the accident. This could be compared with when it actually happened, which triggered a short flurry of attention after which it promptly vanished when easy sources of information dried up.

    The incident could easily have been extremely serious, and those involved were very lucky that it wasn’t. With the limited info available at first, potential significance for risks elsewhere, such as other back-country bridges, was high. The build date of the bridge, mid-1990s and roughly the same time as when DOC’s inconsistent building practices produced the Cave Creek Platform death trap, really should have triggered alarm bells of something worth active journalistic investigation. If those bells were ringing, they weren’t acted on.
    (more…)

  • Collapsing Bridges

    Today’s news about one of the two main support cables of the Hopuruahine Bridge (on a map) giving way, along the Lake Waikaremoana Great Walk (radio NZ, Stuff, NZ Herald) should be seen as very concerning. The consequence was that four tourists were dropped eight metres into two metres of water below. With a different set of circumstances (flooded river, shallower or no water, victims being incapacitated on the way down or otherwise unable to swim), the outcome could easily have been far more serious than four people plunging into a river and clambering out with their lives intact. Especially since the Cave Creek accident of 1995, which I wrote about in detail here, this is the type of incident which should never happen if a bridge has been engineered, built and inspected according to the standards by which DOC holds itself under New Zealand law, and yet it’s happened anyway.

    21003564696_5fb8955a21_n-4670279
    An asset number tag on the bridge over
    the Waingawa River in the Tararuas,
    outside Cow Creek Hut.
    (Not the bridge in question.)
    20843134439_b225ca8282_n-1595251

    Although the area is jointly managed by DOC and the Te Urewera Board, it’s likely DOC with its expertise and systems which continues to be most directly responsible for monitoring and maintenance of this bridge, as would have been the case until recently anyway. If you look closely at bridges, huts, signs, and nearly anything else significant and artificial that’s administered by DOC, you’ll find a tag with a number. Here’s a photographed example of the tag I passed on a bridge, just last Saturday.

    The number on the tag maps back to the Department of Conservation’s asset tracking system. The system is used to keep track of all of DOC’s structures. It assists with generation of inspection and maintenance programmes for qualified staff to check and verify that all of these structures are up-to-standard, and to record when this inspection and maintenance has been carried out.

    So far, media reports have stated that the bridge in question was most recently inspected in June, three months before this occurred. [Additional: Although Stuff and Radio NZ have both reported the most recent check as having been in June, Mike Slater of DOC stated in a Radio NZ Checkpoint interview that there was an Engineer inspection 18 months ago, a further inspection by a qualified DOC inspector 1 year ago, plus regular observations by DOC staff. The June claim in the Stuff article seems to originate from a statement by the Te Urewera Board which jointly manages the park, but it’s unclear what type of inspection that was.]

    It’s too early to say what the cause is for this to have happened, and whether we should be concerned about any other structures. DOC has already sent a senior engineer to the site to investigate more completely. Possibilities, I suppose, are (a) that an inspector made a mistake, (b) that whatever inspection plan which exists for the bridge was flawed for some reason, (c) that the design of the bridge was fundamentally flawed from the start, (d) that the bridge wasn’t built to its design, or (e) that some kind of vandalism or unforseen serious damage has occurred since the most recent inspection.
    (more…)

  • Updated Hut Maintenance Figures

    When back-country hut fees increased several years ago, I wrote with some disappointment about how I saw hut fees as being the price of being honest. I still think that, but it’s not something up for negotiation right now.

    Back then, I also tried to compare the expenditure on maintenance of back-country huts with the revenue from back-country hut tickets. This wasn’t fully possible because a DOC accountant told me that spending between regular back-country huts and Great Walk huts couldn’t be separated, despite the user-pays component of the latter not actually coming from back-country ticket and pass sales.

    In other words, the $16.5 million figure for expenditure on “huts” in DOC’s 2009 Annual Report couldn’t be split between two classes of hut which are treated radically differently where maintenance is concerned, and so couldn’t be nicely compared with the user pays revenue streams for those classes of huts. Comparing hut ticket revenue with $16.5 million of expenditure wasn’t very meaningful when the bulk of that spending is probably going to maintenance of huts with user-pays fees sourced elsewhere.

    Lately, in April we had a forum conversation on the NZ Tramper website, and this question of comparison came up again. Trying my luck a second time I fired off an Official Information Act request, and this time it seems to have gone to someone much more helpful. I received the exact figures I asked for. I didn’t bother to ask specifically about expenses on Great Walk and similar huts because they don’t interest me as much, but here are the comparisons for regular back-country hut revenue and expenditure for the last few years.
    (more…)

  • Unofficial Tracks in Egmont National Park

    16171535318_71ef43d7c5_n-8761728
    Track Closed signs in Egmont National Park.
    16172888069_f5990f07a6_n-7017941

    I hope that some of the quotes in Wednesday’s article via the Taranaki Daily News have been printed incorrectly or out of context.

    In it, a senior DOC ranger, referring to Egmont National Park, comments about people unofficially marking and maintaining old tracks, which DOC no longer officially maintains. Sometimes people even mark new tracks of their own making!

    The problem? Other people might follow them. They might get lost or distracted from DOC’s official tracks. The unofficial routes might not have been routed or maintained to the same safety standards as DOC would have ensured. It might be harder to find people if they get lost, because they’ll be away from the main tracks.

    I have mixed thoughts about this, but mostly dismay with DOC’s apparent stance. There may be issues where people are causing significant damage to the surrounding environment by marking and maintaining their tracks. If people are placing giant markers that are damaging or out of character, or are themselves creating a hazard in ways which rival what the nearby outdoor creates all by itself, then fair enough to raise those specific instances. But beyond this I’m struggling to see an issue with people using and marking alternative routes.
    (more…)

  • A New Era for Outdoor Safety Training

    In February I wrote about the structural changes in the Mountain Safety Council, with an expression of concern. A reference which I’d included if I’d known of it was the the MSC’s own explanation of the changes, which is buried in the depths of its website.

    The bubble diagram towards the end of that page represents what’s happening quite well. The MSC is removing nearly all of its outdoor safety training, will no longer be setting any safety standards, and instead will shift to a more hands-off model of producing safety messages and collecting information. Reasoning is provided, but the end result is that most of the excellent training programmes and material which the MSC produced, for amateurs and by amateurs, will no longer be available through the Mountain Safety Council in future.

    This has caused concern in many circles, which I’m inclined to agree with. For roughly five decades now, the Mountain Safety Council has been synonymous in New Zealand with research, setting of standards, training and expertise for bushcraft, river safety, alpine and climbing skills, avalanche safety, firearms safety, outdoor leadership and outdoor first aid. It’s impressive that the sustained activity in these has mostly come from volunteers, not just to help around the edges but to be fundamentally involved, become experts and to train others up to a high level.

    As linked in February, the upcoming move to do away with most training programmes, and then sideline volunteers from the organisation as newly superfluous to requirements (unless they want to simply help with token tasks around the edges) has not gone down well with some of those volunteers.
    (more…)

  • What’s up with the Mountain Safety Council?

    From this morning’s news, it sounds as if the Mountain Safety Council is going more professional, doing away with amateur instructors and, for the most part, even training people at all.

    I’ve never been a direct member of the Mountain Safety Council, but I’ve attended some courses and read training material that’s published alongside those courses like the Bushcraft Manual, the Outdoor First Aid Manual, and the Alpine Skills Manual. I’ve also attended courses run through my local tramping club with MSC-accredited instructors and MSC course material.

    From my limited exposure I’ve been impressed with how the system works. Once you get into the Mountain Safety Council beyond the lowest levels, it doesn’t just aim to teach you stuff. It encourages you to get involved in a progressive programme towards becoming an expert in the field, remaining updated with the latest research and techniques, and ultimately becoming an instructor who can train others at an expert level.

    It’s sad to read, therefore, that there’s apparently now a plan to flatten this structure: no longer allowing volunteers to have training accreditation, and at best using amateurs as vassals to help out with relatively simplistic tasks like “deliver safety messages” instead of being a serious part of the process. Waikato Branch executive member, John Greenwood, seems to have a good point in the above-linked article that volunteers would have little reason to stay involved with the Mountain Safety Council. After all, what’s in it for them?
    (more…)

  • Trespassing from public land

    A story hit the news not long ago, based on a DOC media release (alternative Stuff rendition), where a group of people (labelled ‘hunters’ but better described as a group of dope smoking idiots with guns) have been trespassed from Kaweka Forest Park. It sounds as if they’ve been going in, acting like obnoxious morons and between that breaking a variety of laws and rules in ways that ruin other people’s experience, such as discharging weapons after dark, burying caches of illegal stuff (weapons, cannabis), and so on.

    It doesn’t seem unreasonable to deal with people like this, and the behaviour described isn’t something I want anyone to have to put up with, but one thing that confused me was the reference to Trespass Law.

    The Conservation Act and the National Parks Act essentially guarantee public access to public land, unless it’s closed or access is restricted for a variety of specific reasons that are specified in law. I won’t get into the detail, but a couple of years back I wrote about it all. The result is that DOC can’t simply tell you to get out, at least without certain paperwork which isn’t common: its role is typically one of a caretaker and not a gatekeeper or an owner.
    (more…)

  • Condensing the back-country into Wellington

    15335450224_7283963f99_n-4415607
    Steve checks out Robin Hut, battered by
    wind on Wellington’s South Coast.

    Earlier today, Eamonn and Steve and I checked out some of the Miniature Hikes huts that have popped up around Wellington, and which should be around until the end of March, with a parallel display in the Courtenay Place Light Boxes. It’s a very cool idea.

    The project has recently received some media attention, both in mainstream publications and also in some tramping and outdoor channels. The exhibition’s main website gives a better idea of what it’s about, as does a short YouTube clip in which the artists explain what they’re on about.

    The idea is to “shrink the back-country into just Wellington”, giving people excuses to get out and find parts of Wellington’s back-yard away from the roads (but not too far away) which they might not otherwise have seen.

    Personally I hope that March won’t be the last we see of it.
    (more…)

  • Thoughts about a Pouakai Crossing route

    Recently my attention was caught by Radio NZ briefly publishing an idea about a “Pouakai Crossing” track in Egmont National Park, supposedly to “rival the Tongariro Crossing” according to the headline. On seeing that headline, my first thoughts were admittedly “why” and “how”?

    6815218200_af249f9e63_z-2323791
    Mount Taranaki, spectacularly reflected in the famous Pouakai Tarn nearby this fabulous proposed new route.

    It’s Taranaki, so it’s usually raining. I don’t mind this, myself. I think that getting out and tramping in the rain helps me to appreciate an environment in ways which many people often don’t see it. Unless it’s Taranaki, in which case getting out and tramping in the sunshine helps me to appreciate an environment in ways which many people often don’t see it. To be fair, I have once completed a slightly modified Pouakai Circuit walk, during which I recorded not a drop of rain at all. I wrote it up to preserve the memento.

    There was little in Radio NZ’s actual article consistent with the headline’s claim of “rivaling the Tongariro Crossing”, so maybe it was artistic journalism in that case. Looking further, the Taranaki Daily News had also printed this more detailed article a week earlier. The more I think about it, it doesn’t seem as crazy an idea to me.

    It sounds as if it’s mostly a marketing push, to promote the managed track which is already there and improve facilities at the ends, thereby providing something which appeals to tourists. This could result in it being at least as much of a local council thing as a DOC thing, because many of the initial adjustments mightn’t be on DOC-administered land. You can already easily walk one proposed variant of the route on existing managed tracks in the park right now. In fact, one of the main advocates, the Kiwi Outdoors Centre, already promotes a self-guided trip for which they’ll provide a transport service at each end. The Park’s Management Plan is due to be up for revision soon, so the idea will probably get some consideration as part of that process.

    The route being described is the most obvious interesting route for a crossing of the Pouakai Range at present. It starts at the North Egmont visitor centre, up the Razorback, around past Holly Hut, across the Ahukawakawa Swamp to Pouakai Hut, and then down a relatively steep track to the end of Mangorei Road. From a tourist perspective it makes most sense to walk it in this direction, if only to avoid a steep grind of a walk up the hill from Mangorei Road to Pouakai Hut.

    The idea is that it can be done in a day, which is probably where the comparison with the Tongariro Crossing has been derived.

    The problem? Mangorei Road is basically a dead-end farm road. For the insanely fit locals in various Harrier Clubs of Taranaki, it’s feasible to park a car there, run up and around the side of the mountain (in the rain), swapping keys in the middle with a friend who’s running the opposite direction (in the rain), all between morning and afternoon milking sessions (which will also occur in the rain). But Mangorei Road’s current state is less enticing for someone on a one-way trip if it entails waiting for transport out of there, or needing to arrange transport once you arrive. Especially when it’s raining.

    It’s usually raining.
    (more…)