Muliti path summits/hikes

#1

I feel like we need to agree on a naming structure for multi path summits.
I’ve read Richards Making sense of Mt Barney and believe an overall topic should be made for this.

I like the way Richard is going with the structure which is:
{Mountain} - {Peak/view location} - {ascent ridge} - {decent ridge}

However what has comes to my attention is: What do we do about the {ridges}? If there is multiple (say 3 ways/tracks to the top) that would mean 9 possible combinations of tracks/names.
Now I feel some ridges would be easier/clearer going one way then another and as such maybe only 3 or 4 combinations would only make sense to include on this site. However I do feel like all (ridges) should be possible both ways (ie return trip). So in some way I feel like maybe just separating each ridge (East, west, etc) as an ascent and decent return trip may create the least amount of tracks on this website, while still having all paths included. Hence that name would just be:
{Mountain} - {Peak/view location} - {ridge}

However this would mean, that if someone does a joint ridge track, that

  1. They will most likely only add summit images to one track
  2. They may add wrong pictures to ridge.
  3. Walk “Ticks” would mean they have done almost double tracks as they didn’t return on the same path (unless it’s a one way type walk).

So what does everyone think we should do? Create all 9 tracks. Just leave the main routes that everyone does. Create only one way ridges. other suggestions?

The only way I can think of to totally solve this would be creating a pathway link within each walk. So that when {Mountain} - {Peak/view location} is clicked:
The usual walk page appears (however without route information while adding the combination of walks as separate buttons). and when on of those combinations are clicked that then comes up the usual walk page with just that route information (images uploaded to these routes could be added to the main walk page too). If this was included it could create extra information like adding paths outside of a circuit (say if a viewpoint or rock pools are off the main track, this may be then added.

1 Like
#2

Thanks Maverick, great to see some input and looking forward to see where this goes.

1 Like
#3

The list of routes within a walk feature you describe is interesting. My main worry whenever adding a new feature is whether it would make things more complex for limited improvement so keep that in mind as we discuss.

I like that this feature could be used for capturing optional parts of a walk. The one that jumps to my mind is Mt Cordeaux + Bare Rock - users could select whether they did Bare Rock or not when they tick the walk. I also like that it would consolidate multiple walks into a single entity which reduces noise on the map.

What doesn’t it solve? It still won’t capture all of the fantastic variety of walks that people do. Adventurous types that might traverse Mt Maroon on their way to the Upper Portals before climbing Barney. Do we want to capture that? Or do we think of Aussie Bushwalking more of a guidebook that isn’t designed to list arbitrary trails that people do. Do we add another feature that allows people to put in custom walks that are really just to capture what they did and shouldn’t appear on the map (or at least should be hidden away a little bit)?

It would be good to have a list of examples to consider when discussing this. Here’s a few off the top of my head:

  • Mt Cordeaux + Bare Rock
  • Mt Barney routes (our most complex example? is there something more complex)
  • Mt Greville routes (less complex than Barney as it only has the single peak to deal with)
  • Custom trails incorporating a series of walks into a single epic
1 Like
#4

As for your first comment “make things more complex for limited improvement”. I do believe this would be a huge change to the structure of the map and each walk page, however if done right, I feel like it shouldn’t come across too complex. As for improvements, well I guess that depends on what the majority of people on this site are trying to achieve. In my case this would be a significant improvement on how I view the website.

For me I look at a walk, mainly at the distance and difficulty. However once I start the hike, I would definitely take a the extra paths if they I feel like I should judging by the name of the location. (ie. rock pools 400m --> then yea I’ll probably go right and explore) Now I’m sure there are some additional hidden locations that people could add that aren’t signed off on the track itself. So for me the additional sub tracks would be of some use. If a separate web page is needed for these I’m not entirely sure. Maybe just another heading in the information section might do the trick (however this may cause confusion and clutter to people just wanting information on the main track).

As for examples; I’m one to typically stay on track and usually do only medium or hard tracks with my mates (as we slowly increase our endurance and confidence in exploring) So I can’t say many examples, apart from what I’ve heard with Mt Barney. I just assumed that surely there would be some other peaks around that this topic would be a good idea to talk about.

As for those extreme adventurous types. I feel like we can’t just ignore them, especially since I believe those are the people that are typically adding new hikes and editing old ones and are the ones that actually have an account. However I feel like a semi defined track definitely needs to be there for a track to be included as a walk. not just trek through bush from one path to another. I do like the idea that this is more of a guidebook.

In short. I believe this would be a decent improvement that will add a lot more detail to the overall website, however also hopefully bring down some of the clutter on the map and clarity to different walk options. This does mean though that quite a few of the tracks may need editing, so the transition may be hard (especially working with the user interface), however in the end, as a guidebook for hikes in Australia, if would be useful.

1 Like
#5

I agree. I think it will be a good improvement and I think the site has matured enough for it to be useful. I’m not too concerned about the editing required - that’s something that can happen gradually over time.

Now I just have to find some time to get it done!