[talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 12:36:09 GMT 2010

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:54 AM, John Henderson <snowgum at gmx.com> wrote:
> I reckon these arguments are trivial and inconsequential compared with
> confusion created by using the term "national" in some watered-down way.

That's basically how I see your position: the value of sticking to a
strict reading of "national" and "international" is much lower than
the practical benefits of using the four layers of network in a way
that is comparable with other countries. I see it as similar to the
"café" debate we had a while ago: do we define a term like
"amenity=cafe" in terms of absolutes (serves coffee and sit down
meals, but little or no alcohol), or in culturally relative terms
(what do locals understand by "café"). If you stick with absolute
definitions, you get wild imbalances - maybe France has no "cafés"
while Portugal has tens of thousands or something. And in the same
way, Australia has almost no IWN/NWN walking routes by the absolute
definition, but if the relative definition is "the country's most
significant and longest trails", then we have something more useful.

Your position is certainly not without merit, but let me ask you a
couple of questions:
1) What are the tangible benefits of NWN meaning the same thing in
Austria as in Australia?
2) Given that you are essentially proposing that all hiking trails
(bar two) in Australia be marked either LWN/RWN, do you not think it's
a disadvantage to only have two levels rather than four?
3) Under your preferred option, lonvia.de would only render two trails
when viewing a map of the whole of Australia. Do you see that as an
implementation detail (ie, lonvia should be fixed), an unfortunate
reflection of reality, or something different?


More information about the Talk-au mailing list