The question of whether ‘non-approved’ paths, other tracks and even ways to go should be shown on hiking maps was recently raised yet again, this time from the Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife side.
It might be instructive to look at a bit of history here.
When in the 1970s the legislation that allowed for the creation of Wilderness areas was passed it clearly stated that a proclaimed Wilderness Area was somewhere where the hiker was free to ramble wherever they liked – and there might not be any formal footpaths at all. This concept caused some ructions in the old Natal Parks Board, Bill Barnes amongst others fiercely opposing the idea. That was of course why none of the old NPB reserves became part of the various Drakensberg Wilderness Areas – these were all Department of Forestry-managed lands at that time – and the law relating to these areas remains unchanged to this day.
The Mountain Club of South Africa, however, was an equally fierce proponent of the right to free access to the mountains – after all, climbing challenges seldom align themselves neatly with a formal path system. When the first recreation maps were mooted – very shortly after the Wilderness Areas were proclaimed – the lack of formal paths, especially to many of the escarpment passes, was raised by the MCSA reps at the first meeting that we held at Midmar Dam, in about 1977. The idea of showing ‘ways to go’– as adopted on many overseas maps – was proposed by the MCSA as mean to directing hikers up the right ravine, on which side of the stream or ridge they should move where there was no path, etc etc. The concept was broadly accepted by all as a wise solution that would minimise the possibility of people wandering around all over the place.
All the maps subsequently produced for the Berg – and indeed many other areas – have retained the concept of ‘ways to go’ – and the map reference clearly states that these are NOT paths.
Non-approved paths and ‘other tracks’ raise a different concern. Those who favour diagrammatic ‘maps’ want maps that show as little info as possible. Our own philosophy is that an honest map shows as much information as we can put on to it. We don’t favour the Stalinist USSR model, where the State simply left things off maps that it wanted to hide from its citizens, or even deliberately falsified information.
A footpath or track or even fire-belt tracer is a landmark in a wild environment. If a lost hiker comes across a feature like this and cannot identify it on his map he is not assisted – whereas if the info is there and the track he has stumbled upon helps him to orientate himself, it might save his life.
And – finally – surely it is self-evident that if you don’t want a path [or a road or a railway line or whatever] to be used, leaving it off the map isn’t going to help in the slightest. You have to physically close it and, if possible, remove it altogether.
Comments welcome!
No comments:
Post a Comment