Author |
Craglets Tasmanian climbing guide now online |
|
|
24-Nov-2007 4:32:25 PM
|
Roger Parkyn and Matt Perchard and co have generously allowed all of the Craglets guidebook to appear online.
They are now at http://www.thesarvo.com/confluence/display/thesarvo/Climbing+Guides
The idea is that the guides will now be maintained (and hopefully enhanced) online. Some time in the future PDFs will also be available so you can easily print out the guides and take them to the crags.
There may also be on-demand printed guides (similar to the Mt Wellington guide) published by http://www.lulu.com . First off will probably be a pocket guide to Freycinet - Coles Bay.
Anyone with high resolution digital action or topo photos to contribute please send them to jon@thesarvo.com.
|
24-Nov-2007 9:52:07 PM
|
Might I ask why you didn't use www.climb.org.au ?
|
24-Nov-2007 10:51:56 PM
|
Because tasmania is different.
|
25-Nov-2007 9:02:04 AM
|
Care to elaborate?
|
25-Nov-2007 12:53:49 PM
|
Awesome work with the guide and making it available digitally. Thanks guys!
The days of photocopying the Hobart Public Library's guide are over :-)
|
26-Nov-2007 12:49:47 PM
|
On 25/11/2007 MrKyle wrote:
>Care to elaborate?
tasmanians have two heads.
it helps when they visit the mainland. gives them someone interesting to talk to....
|
28-Nov-2007 10:37:02 AM
|
great work, some of the photo topos are great and the totem pole model is really cool (for the kids of course, not to lust over on the work desk). i was just wondering what happened to my coles bay guide.
It is a tricky thing putting all the info online verses nothing. our local club see it as an important revenue to fund bolting (selling of guides that is) so there is very little info online.
|
28-Nov-2007 11:01:13 AM
|
> i was just wondering what happened to my coles bay guide.
What do you mean?
|
28-Nov-2007 11:20:22 AM
|
i mean someone borrowed it and never returned it. And i have been thinking of a tassie road trip.
|
28-Nov-2007 1:35:31 PM
|
The club scene doesn't seem as previlant in Australia - & clubs certainly don't fund bolting! clubs still exist obviously, but their membership demographics don't accurately reflect the climbing community as a whole (IMO).
|
28-Nov-2007 3:04:41 PM
|
On 28/11/2007 james wrote:
>
>(snip) clubs certainly
>don't fund bolting!
The Sydney Rockclimbing Club supports rebolting - see http://www.sydneyrockies.org.au/climbing/rebolting/rebolting.html
The most recent example was paying for replacement rap anchors at Warrumbungles with work carried out by Joe Goding and friends.
|
28-Nov-2007 5:18:42 PM
|
On 28/11/2007 tnd wrote:
>The Sydney Rockclimbing Club supports rebolting - see http://www.sydneyrockies.org.au/cli
>bing/rebolting/rebolting.html
>
>The most recent example was paying for replacement rap anchors at Warrumbungles
>with work carried out by Joe Goding and friends.
How does this fit into your insurance policy? You are effectivly funding fixe danchors - thus there would
be some onus on you to be responsible for them wouldn't there? We got knocked back from the VCC for
any bolting funding a few years back because of this...
|
28-Nov-2007 6:43:46 PM
|
surely if you got fixe gear, designed for rock climbing you could get past liability? wouldnt publishing new routes be similar? just a quick shpeel about its unsafe blah blah doesnt cover it? everyones always up for re-bolting, but $2 for a u-bolt is too much to pay for most!
|
29-Nov-2007 9:23:42 AM
|
We (I'm saying "we" as I am currently President of the SRC) don't have liability insurance as we are unable to obtain any, so there is no insurance issue. In fact not having insurance makes us a very poor target for a legal suit, as our assets wouldn't cover the legal fees of any successful action!
Legal advice we received before recommencing the running of climbing trips was that under NSW legislation climbing would be considered an obviously dangerous activity. Thus anyone who takes part in the activity can be taken to understand this.
The thrust of the legal advice was that people have to take responsibility for their own actions, including the action of placing complete trust in fixed gear (when it is a generally accepted climbing principle that one should not do so). We feel that simply by paying for the materials for someone to rebolt a climb, we cannot be held responsible for faulty materials or poor workmanship by the installer.
None of this has ever been tested in a court of law in NSW. I guess we feel that (a) we are not worth suing and (b) we would have a good defence against any claim that we were somehow liable for something over which we had no control.
In terms of liability Neil, you and I and others who put up new bolted routes are much more liable when we've put our names to them!
|
30-Nov-2007 11:22:13 AM
|
>We feel that simply by paying for the materials for someone to rebolt a climb, we cannot be held responsible for faulty materials or poor workmanship by the installer.
I know nothing about legality issues but would think that any slaggers trying out the system would argue that the amount of money funding such activity has a link to safety, ie underfunding leads to purchase of lesser quality materials and as such the degree of control you exercise over it is linked accordingly.
... ~> leads to premise of do it right or not at all?
>In terms of liability Neil, you and I and others who put up new bolted routes are much more liable when we've put our names to them!
... maybe one can't get blood out of a stone but I would also think that your statement of
>In fact not having insurance makes us a very poor target for a legal suit, as our assets wouldn't cover the legal fees of any successful action!
applies here too?
|
30-Nov-2007 11:30:42 AM
|
Fortunately in NZ we dont have the same litigious nature as Australia or USA.
ACC covers personal injury issues quite well.
But overall there is a culture of taking responsibility for your own actions.
Law suits have generally been limited to serious failures of duty of care.
Note: as far as i am aware and in my opinion having grown up in australia and living in nz.
|
30-Nov-2007 12:12:04 PM
|
On 30/11/2007 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>>We feel that simply by paying for the materials for someone to rebolt
>a climb, we cannot be held responsible for faulty materials or poor workmanship
>by the installer.
>
>I know nothing about legality issues but would think that any slaggers
>trying out the system would argue that the amount of money funding such
>activity has a link to safety, ie underfunding leads to purchase of lesser
>quality materials and as such the degree of control you exercise over it
>is linked accordingly.
>... ~> leads to premise of do it right or not at all?
They could argue lots of things. But their arguments have to prove direct liability. They would have to go after the bolter first. Regarding your example above, we do not underfund. If we agree to support a project, we will pay the going rate for the best materials.
>
>>In terms of liability Neil, you and I and others who put up new bolted
>routes are much more liable when we've put our names to them!
>
>... maybe one can't get blood out of a stone but I would also think that
>your statement of
>>In fact not having insurance makes us a very poor target for a legal
>suit, as our assets wouldn't cover the legal fees of any successful action!
>applies here too?
Not if one fully or partly owns a house, which the majority of people do. There have been cases (non-climbing) of people losing their homes having lost a liability suit.
|
30-Nov-2007 12:36:46 PM
|
On 30/11/2007 tnd wrote:
> Regarding your
>example above, we do not underfund. If we agree to support a project, we
>will pay the going rate for the best materials.
sigh. i wish safer cliffs victoria even got a hint of this sort of attitude from the VCC or other 'governing
bodies'. At best they allowed us to collect donations (by hand) at slideshows that i did.
|
30-Nov-2007 2:27:01 PM
|
That reminds me, still waiting for your royalty cheque to arrive from my now-famous "blue nail polish hanger" that formed part of your travelling circus sideshow, Neil.
|