This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Hi,
I write this from New Zealand so my thoughts are fresh.
Its diffcult not to notice the Department of Conservation (DOC) signage when amongst the mountains or lowlands for that matter.
The signage is at the beginning of most if not all footapths. They inform the reader of the length and/or time and/or diffculty of the walk aheadto take along in a rucksack.
I´m reluctant to say the terrain and conditions are potentially worse over here in NZ than the UK but I dont go with that point of view. However the longer walks are very accessible over here.
My point/question is that with ill equipped/experienced people entering our hills are signs needed?
British walking needs to better organised from Tourist Info down to signage on footapths.
I like them but I can`t imagine the British walking/clmbing community entertaining the idea.
Opinions?
Stuart.
In reply to greylag:
I also write this from NZ. Have lived here for many years. I HATE the DOC signage - there are almost never any distances listed on the sign - just a general time frame for when you might expect to reach the destination.
I also don't like the pampering "for experienced trampers only" signs.
I also write this from NZ. Have lived here for many years. I HATE the DOC signage - there are almost never any distances listed on the sign - just a general time frame for when you might expect to reach the destination.
I also don't like the pampering "for experienced trampers only" signs.
In reply to greylag:
Ooh, are we having a NZ chat?
I don't mind the signs, and it's very rare (at least in fairly accessible countryside) to find people with a topographical map, as you're either on the path or you're not. Have you every seen anyone tramping with a compass who's not uber-tramper or foreign? (I think the 16 degrees magnetic offset or whatever it is might not help). Just follow the orange triangles. Although I did once see one on a tree in the middle of a river pointing downstream, but I think the tree had come loose.
But you do need to use a bit of judgement for the times, depending on the area you're in and your experience of similar walks. It's always surprising when you actually hit the time on the sign. I think of it like grading climbs or problems- it depends on the wall, the local conditions, who's going to be using it and, in some cases, the actual setter.
For the UK - why? You can usually see where you're going, there is good GPS coverage, you're never that far from a road, and there's usually someone else along in a minute to ask
Ooh, are we having a NZ chat?
I don't mind the signs, and it's very rare (at least in fairly accessible countryside) to find people with a topographical map, as you're either on the path or you're not. Have you every seen anyone tramping with a compass who's not uber-tramper or foreign? (I think the 16 degrees magnetic offset or whatever it is might not help). Just follow the orange triangles. Although I did once see one on a tree in the middle of a river pointing downstream, but I think the tree had come loose.
But you do need to use a bit of judgement for the times, depending on the area you're in and your experience of similar walks. It's always surprising when you actually hit the time on the sign. I think of it like grading climbs or problems- it depends on the wall, the local conditions, who's going to be using it and, in some cases, the actual setter.
For the UK - why? You can usually see where you're going, there is good GPS coverage, you're never that far from a road, and there's usually someone else along in a minute to ask
In reply to greylag: You are right to mention the signage in the NZ backcountry. However, I'm not sure that you're correct about the impact. Let's look at a very pertinent example: the Cascade Saddle.
I've linked to the latest coroner's report which is now questioning whether fixed equipment is appropriate after another fatality: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/276070/advice-safety-rope-reques...
The information of the Cascade Saddle is available on the DOC website, at the DOC office in Wanaka, at the Raspberry Flat roadhead carpark, at the NZAC Aspiring Hut (beside the start of the track up to Cascade Saddle), and at the start of the track itself (100m from the hut).
It is well signed in terms of when it should be attempted - the sign is right beside the start of the track https://twitter.com/janianb/status/365404059840159745/photo/1
You'll notice that the track is well-publicised, accurately signed, is a known accident area...
'...all those who died in recent years had ''specifically ignored, or failed to adequately act on'', either the signage or advice of Doc staff.
''The feeling of the consultative group was that some people do not accept advice given and are therefore the authors of their own subsequent misfortune.''
I've linked to the latest coroner's report which is now questioning whether fixed equipment is appropriate after another fatality: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/queenstown-lakes/276070/advice-safety-rope-reques...
The information of the Cascade Saddle is available on the DOC website, at the DOC office in Wanaka, at the Raspberry Flat roadhead carpark, at the NZAC Aspiring Hut (beside the start of the track up to Cascade Saddle), and at the start of the track itself (100m from the hut).
It is well signed in terms of when it should be attempted - the sign is right beside the start of the track https://twitter.com/janianb/status/365404059840159745/photo/1
You'll notice that the track is well-publicised, accurately signed, is a known accident area...
'...all those who died in recent years had ''specifically ignored, or failed to adequately act on'', either the signage or advice of Doc staff.
''The feeling of the consultative group was that some people do not accept advice given and are therefore the authors of their own subsequent misfortune.''
A further element which is not evident in the UK is the awareness that DOC puts into zoning for usage. An example, again from the Mt Aspiring NP:-
Wilderness zone
Remote zone
Backcountry zone
Front country zone.
The expectations for each of these areas is very clear.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/policies-and-plans/national-park-managemen...
I'd add to the comments about the nature of the track marking (mentioned earlier) by referring to the understanding of the very real differences between walking tracks, tramping tracks and routes.
Does signage really change people's perspectives about a route which they intend to do? In my view, based on my experiences here in NZ, the answer is no.
Wilderness zone
Remote zone
Backcountry zone
Front country zone.
The expectations for each of these areas is very clear.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-doc/policies-and-plans/national-park-managemen...
I'd add to the comments about the nature of the track marking (mentioned earlier) by referring to the understanding of the very real differences between walking tracks, tramping tracks and routes.
Does signage really change people's perspectives about a route which they intend to do? In my view, based on my experiences here in NZ, the answer is no.
In reply to greylag: Surely signage and "better" organisation detracts from what is supposed to be a free-spirited activity in which we should take responsibilty for our own actions. To my mind signs and "organisation" is akin to warning people that a packet of peanuts "may contain nuts". Before I set off on a walk, especially one that I've not done before, I study the map, look at the weather and claculate my times and distances and look at possible hazards.
In reply to greylag:
The trouble is with all signage is that:-
Those with common sense read them - and then discover they've got all the stuff in their bags.
Those with ill equipped/no experience won't read them. Or simply think they know better.
Signage in our hills? Mixed feelings. Must be 'discrete' but then that may well defeat the objective of having them there.
The trouble is with all signage is that:-
Those with common sense read them - and then discover they've got all the stuff in their bags.
Those with ill equipped/no experience won't read them. Or simply think they know better.
Signage in our hills? Mixed feelings. Must be 'discrete' but then that may well defeat the objective of having them there.
In reply to greylag:
My recollection of back-country walking in New Zealand is that the density of forest and scrub right up to the natural tree-line is such that trail markings (signs and blazes cut into trees) are much more appropriate. The density of potential walking route lines is less than in the UK, because of the real wilderness character of the terrain and vegetation cover; the path often represents the only logical and perhaps feasible route to take. Compare this to UK uplands, denuded of much forest cover over millennia of habitation, in which the walker can often walk off in any direction without trouble (although needing to bypass cliffs and lochs).
This type of sign is used by the Scottish Rights of Way Society to signal the start of historic paths through the hills, but not in a manner that suggests what the walker should take with him/her. There are some exceptions (the Lairigh Ghru signs, I think?).
In England and Wales lowland footpaths traditionally have very informative and frequent direction signs. These mark Public Rights of Way.
I am not aware of any need for 'British walking' to become better organised per se. The blend of extremely dense rights of way network in the lowlands, and open access across most upland areas, provides ample opportunity. And there are always local information sources that have leaflets, sign panels etc highlighting local area walks.
If signs were to be considered the solution to misadventure by ill-equipped parties, the number of signs required would run into 100s of 1000s.
Happy tramping
My recollection of back-country walking in New Zealand is that the density of forest and scrub right up to the natural tree-line is such that trail markings (signs and blazes cut into trees) are much more appropriate. The density of potential walking route lines is less than in the UK, because of the real wilderness character of the terrain and vegetation cover; the path often represents the only logical and perhaps feasible route to take. Compare this to UK uplands, denuded of much forest cover over millennia of habitation, in which the walker can often walk off in any direction without trouble (although needing to bypass cliffs and lochs).
This type of sign is used by the Scottish Rights of Way Society to signal the start of historic paths through the hills, but not in a manner that suggests what the walker should take with him/her. There are some exceptions (the Lairigh Ghru signs, I think?).
In England and Wales lowland footpaths traditionally have very informative and frequent direction signs. These mark Public Rights of Way.
I am not aware of any need for 'British walking' to become better organised per se. The blend of extremely dense rights of way network in the lowlands, and open access across most upland areas, provides ample opportunity. And there are always local information sources that have leaflets, sign panels etc highlighting local area walks.
If signs were to be considered the solution to misadventure by ill-equipped parties, the number of signs required would run into 100s of 1000s.
Happy tramping
A big part of this is down to cost, like any local government department, PRoW and Highway depts are hard pressed to do what they must with the modest budgets they have.
Take Surrey, for example - having over 3000 miles of rights of way. That's a lot of fingerposts and arms.. at up to £200 per unit and a lifespan of say 20 years if you're lucky (if seasoned oak) assuming no vandalism or other damage (rare) that's a huge sum of money.
To add additional details means bigger signs, and more labour (custom routing, stencilling, etc) and perhaps 30%-100% more cost. National Trails and voluntarily aided Long Distance Routes (green diamond routes on your OS Explorer map in the UK) might have a little extra money as they are regarded as 'honeypots', likewise National Trust managed areas with high tourist footfall, or popular National Park spots - but otherwise the vast majority of footpath use in lowland areas (i.e. below 400m and non-remote) is by local residents, so that type of signage isn't needed.
It's far cheaper to print leaflets or fingerpost disks for short (<5 mile) walks, they are easier to fix/move and cheaper to change if the route changes.
As for opinion on what is best.. well, that's really down to footpath sign users not using maps, surely (as pointed out above), i.e. tourists who are walking without full outdoor gear, maps, compasses, etc). Having said that, even with full gear, I'll still happily admit to being grateful for signage in areas where confusion (even on maps) is present!
Take Surrey, for example - having over 3000 miles of rights of way. That's a lot of fingerposts and arms.. at up to £200 per unit and a lifespan of say 20 years if you're lucky (if seasoned oak) assuming no vandalism or other damage (rare) that's a huge sum of money.
To add additional details means bigger signs, and more labour (custom routing, stencilling, etc) and perhaps 30%-100% more cost. National Trails and voluntarily aided Long Distance Routes (green diamond routes on your OS Explorer map in the UK) might have a little extra money as they are regarded as 'honeypots', likewise National Trust managed areas with high tourist footfall, or popular National Park spots - but otherwise the vast majority of footpath use in lowland areas (i.e. below 400m and non-remote) is by local residents, so that type of signage isn't needed.
It's far cheaper to print leaflets or fingerpost disks for short (<5 mile) walks, they are easier to fix/move and cheaper to change if the route changes.
As for opinion on what is best.. well, that's really down to footpath sign users not using maps, surely (as pointed out above), i.e. tourists who are walking without full outdoor gear, maps, compasses, etc). Having said that, even with full gear, I'll still happily admit to being grateful for signage in areas where confusion (even on maps) is present!
In reply to greylag:
I think you are comparing apples and oranges! Beyond that I find your question so confusingly worded I'm not at all sure what you mean! We should have more signs in the UK?
I think you are comparing apples and oranges! Beyond that I find your question so confusingly worded I'm not at all sure what you mean! We should have more signs in the UK?
In reply to alexgoodey:
Here in Cheshire/Shropshire all footpaths are signed. The signs are pretty simple - no distances or other info apart from an arrow. I think this probably helps to stop people straying from the recognized route. However, the paths are over our fields are very rarely used and can often become overgrown where they go through hedges, even though we do clear them about once a year.
The local authority has erected styles over fences and through hedges. Whilst this is a good thing, they now lack the money to repair them. We aren't allowed to and sometimes need to erect fencing where styles have fallen down to make the field stock proof. Although it hasn't happened yet, I am sure someone will come along soon and accuse us of deliberately blocking a path.
I don't agree with signing paths in upland/mountain areas.
Here in Cheshire/Shropshire all footpaths are signed. The signs are pretty simple - no distances or other info apart from an arrow. I think this probably helps to stop people straying from the recognized route. However, the paths are over our fields are very rarely used and can often become overgrown where they go through hedges, even though we do clear them about once a year.
The local authority has erected styles over fences and through hedges. Whilst this is a good thing, they now lack the money to repair them. We aren't allowed to and sometimes need to erect fencing where styles have fallen down to make the field stock proof. Although it hasn't happened yet, I am sure someone will come along soon and accuse us of deliberately blocking a path.
I don't agree with signing paths in upland/mountain areas.
In reply to greylag:
The UK possibly has the best mapping in the world (OS maps), there is an immense amount of detail on our maps and available to everyone, no excuse not to have one (or digital equivalent if you must).
Unfortunately more and more walkers/trekkers head out onto paths and hills with not a clue how to use a map & compass, let alone what to do in situations. I expect it is the same the world over and won't change, I doubt more signs will help.
I arrive in Nelson NZ on 01/01/2014 for 6 weeks fun playing in the hills, I promise to read all the signs!
The UK possibly has the best mapping in the world (OS maps), there is an immense amount of detail on our maps and available to everyone, no excuse not to have one (or digital equivalent if you must).
Unfortunately more and more walkers/trekkers head out onto paths and hills with not a clue how to use a map & compass, let alone what to do in situations. I expect it is the same the world over and won't change, I doubt more signs will help.
I arrive in Nelson NZ on 01/01/2014 for 6 weeks fun playing in the hills, I promise to read all the signs!
In reply to greylag:
>My point/question is that with ill equipped/experienced people entering our hills are signs needed?
No, of course not.
jcm
>My point/question is that with ill equipped/experienced people entering our hills are signs needed?
No, of course not.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
We have very little wild country in the UK, and only a small proportion of that can be considered wilderness. Bringing signage into these areas would make them even less wild and would seriously diminish the experience of going into them.
It is unlikely that signs would deter the inexperienced and foolhardy. Besides, I subscribe to the old-fashioned view that people should take responsibility for themselves.
We have very little wild country in the UK, and only a small proportion of that can be considered wilderness. Bringing signage into these areas would make them even less wild and would seriously diminish the experience of going into them.
It is unlikely that signs would deter the inexperienced and foolhardy. Besides, I subscribe to the old-fashioned view that people should take responsibility for themselves.
In reply to greylag:
So the point of putting signs up is to make things more accessible right? Given that idiots will be idiots whether you put signs up or not, then surely putting up signs just means it's easier for idiots to get involved rather than making them think that they aren't going to have their arse wiped for them if they come unstuck. You're just making it easier for people to get in trouble, and adding a load of unwarranted litter to the hills.
So the point of putting signs up is to make things more accessible right? Given that idiots will be idiots whether you put signs up or not, then surely putting up signs just means it's easier for idiots to get involved rather than making them think that they aren't going to have their arse wiped for them if they come unstuck. You're just making it easier for people to get in trouble, and adding a load of unwarranted litter to the hills.
The issue has arisen before... here's a link that popped up with a bit of searching. Probably there are more recent things.
http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2009/07/28/scotlands-mountains-tell-walker...
Apparently not having signposts is elitist. Who knew?
http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2009/07/28/scotlands-mountains-tell-walker...
Apparently not having signposts is elitist. Who knew?
In reply to Shearwater:
>This attitude, says the Herald columnist, harks back to the historic background of the Highlands as a playground for the landed gentry, from which hoi polloi must be excluded.
Good grief. Does it really, now? I'd have loved to hear Jock Nimlin's observations about that, to name but one.
It really is astonishing how this sort of chippiness blinds people to the most elementary realities.
jcm
>This attitude, says the Herald columnist, harks back to the historic background of the Highlands as a playground for the landed gentry, from which hoi polloi must be excluded.
Good grief. Does it really, now? I'd have loved to hear Jock Nimlin's observations about that, to name but one.
It really is astonishing how this sort of chippiness blinds people to the most elementary realities.
jcm
In reply to dutybooty:
I guess we all know what you mean, but that isn't anything close to what Darwinism means.
> I greatly believe in Darwinism, and thus disapprove of signage on the hills.
I guess we all know what you mean, but that isn't anything close to what Darwinism means.
In reply to greylag:
They have signs in France too... can't see any problem personally, but then I like cairns too.
They have signs in France too... can't see any problem personally, but then I like cairns too.
In reply to Dee:
Sign at the start of the route to Ben Vrackie. It's the only one like it I've seen (well, noticed) in Scotland.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5436ox7erc7bn4d/2007_08310143.JPG
Sign at the start of the route to Ben Vrackie. It's the only one like it I've seen (well, noticed) in Scotland.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5436ox7erc7bn4d/2007_08310143.JPG
In reply to The New NickB:
Darwinism- widely used to mean evolution by natural selection.
Stupid people wander onto hills unprepared, get lost, hypothermia and die. Evolution by natural selection.
> ...that isn't anything close to what Darwinism means.
Darwinism- widely used to mean evolution by natural selection.
Stupid people wander onto hills unprepared, get lost, hypothermia and die. Evolution by natural selection.
In reply to greylag:
I don't know NZ, but comparisons with Europe are misleading. There waymarked paths are mostly in forests or alpine meadows. These may be at higher altitudes than British hills but are a relatively benign environment (compared with the mountains) where people traditionally lived for at least part of the year, and where today you can find ski chalets and hotels. There are also waymarked routes to the huts (which are often visited as destination in themselves by walkers who have no intention of going any higher). Once you get beyond the vicinity of the huts it is unusual to find waymarking in the high mountains, although you may find cairns similar to those here. You are expected to have the skills to operate in this terrain.
The equivalent in the UK is between lowland cultivated countryside which is largely well-served by signposted paths, and the moors and mountains where self-reliance should be paramount.
I don't know NZ, but comparisons with Europe are misleading. There waymarked paths are mostly in forests or alpine meadows. These may be at higher altitudes than British hills but are a relatively benign environment (compared with the mountains) where people traditionally lived for at least part of the year, and where today you can find ski chalets and hotels. There are also waymarked routes to the huts (which are often visited as destination in themselves by walkers who have no intention of going any higher). Once you get beyond the vicinity of the huts it is unusual to find waymarking in the high mountains, although you may find cairns similar to those here. You are expected to have the skills to operate in this terrain.
The equivalent in the UK is between lowland cultivated countryside which is largely well-served by signposted paths, and the moors and mountains where self-reliance should be paramount.
In reply to Howard J:
Well said. The sign at Bwlch Moch where the route up Crib Goch diverges from the PyG track, and the accidents that happen both summer and winter on both routes are good illustrations of your third sentence.
The glaciated terrain of the European Alps is a much closer analogy to British upland than are hut paths and British lowland walks.
Well said. The sign at Bwlch Moch where the route up Crib Goch diverges from the PyG track, and the accidents that happen both summer and winter on both routes are good illustrations of your third sentence.
The glaciated terrain of the European Alps is a much closer analogy to British upland than are hut paths and British lowland walks.
In reply to Moley:
Isn't that an argument that we should have more signs?
> Unfortunately more and more walkers/trekkers head out onto paths and hills with not a clue how to use a map & compass, let alone what to do in situations.
Isn't that an argument that we should have more signs?
In reply to greylag:
I can see that to those who are not part of the outdoor community it may seem daft that we are happy to signpost routes in easy, safe countryside but not in wild, dangerous terrain. However the whole point of going into wild country is to face a challenge. It's an entirely different experience from walking in the park (however pleasant that may be) and anything which reduces the challenge diminishes the experience.
I can see that to those who are not part of the outdoor community it may seem daft that we are happy to signpost routes in easy, safe countryside but not in wild, dangerous terrain. However the whole point of going into wild country is to face a challenge. It's an entirely different experience from walking in the park (however pleasant that may be) and anything which reduces the challenge diminishes the experience.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...