Talk:Heaphy Track

Untitled

The following block of text was commented out of the article with the note "Not sure if this travelogue style info is appropriate." It would be more appropriate at http://wikitravel.org/en/Heaphy_Track

<start>

The path is very well tracked and drained; though adverse weather conditions can occasionally make your walk harder, this remains a quite easy hike, with no strong denivelate nor orientation difficulties. There are absolutely no opportunities to find food along the route, you'll have to bring all you need from departure. Cooking facilities are provided at every hut. Overnighting is allowed only at the seven huts and at six campsites (three of them are on the last coastal section). Hut or camping passes can be bought in advance at most tourist offices in the area. Beware, sandflies can be nasty, especially at Lewis Hut and at places along the coastal section. Buses from Nelson through Collingwood bring hikers to and from the eastern end of the walk ; a daily service links the western end to Karamea, with a connection to Westport there. There is also a non-daily service between Nelson and both ends of the path. Note that there is no road access to any point of the track save its ends.

<end>

Route

There's no route description. The Heaphy Track crosses a good number of rivers, and some of the rivers carry a lot of water. The country's longest suspension bridge crossed the Heaphy River until yesterday until the 147 metres (482 ft) structure was destroyed by a flood. Schwede66 01:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Route description added, as part of efforts to greatly improve this article.--Marshelec (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking great! Schwede66 08:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Do you have any suggestions for further development of this article ? Also, can you please review the assessment. If you have time, can you also do the same for Wangapeka Track. Thanks --Marshelec (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Marshelec Great work! There's a duplication about DOC funding TDC to build three bridges; I suggest this should be discussed in the "Road access" section. Other than that, I've placed some citation needed tags. Once that's resolved, this is easily B-class and, in my opinion, you should put it up for GA review. This looks complete to me. Schwede66 10:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Thanks. The content about the through-road controversy dates from before I started work on this article, and needs rework and more citations. I had found some useful references on this topic previously, and will rewrite based on what I can support with citations.--Marshelec (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Through-road controversy

@Schwede66@Giantflightlessbirds I have finally got around to totally replacing this section of the article. I now plan to prepare a more summarised account, including content about the alternative proposed road through the Wangapeka Track, and include this as an addition to the history section of Kahurangi National Park. Marshelec (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's long and detailed enough, it could even be a standalone article. There's certainly enough material available for it. Schwede66 04:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 That's an interesting idea. I have had a go at merging the content on this topic from the Heaphy Track and Wangapeka Track articles in a sandbox. Here is what it looks like: User:Marshelec/sandbox2. If I were to go ahead and make this into a new article, what do you suggest as a possible title ? Part of the problem with a title is that Kahurangi National Park only came into existence in 1996, but almost all of the controversy was in the 1970s. Thoughts ? Marshelec (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting question. My first reaction was to keep the Heaphy and Wangapeka proposals as separate articles. I always thought that it was known as the "Heaphy Road", but this source calls is the Heaphy Highway.

Reading your draft and all the sources, I realise that it's all a bit interwoven and hard to keep apart. And that the proposal that got closest to implementation didn't follow the Heaphy, but stuck mostly to the coast and tied into the existing road network at Turimawiwi (not Pākawau as your draft says). There goes my thought of "Heaphy Road" being a good title.

Either way, that does not cover the Wangapeka proposal. Maybe there isn't an obvious common name (the sources certainly didn't suggest anything) and we just have to make something up. How about Karamea–Nelson roading proposals? That way, we just have to explain the "Nelson" part (the wider area on the east side was once known as the Nelson Province) and that can cover the broad scope of this article. Schwede66 02:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 I see that there are many articles with titles that begin: "Proposal for ....". See [1]. How about "Proposals for a road through North-west Nelson" ? Marshelec (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Another controversial through-road proposal in NZ is covered in some depth in the article Haast-Hollyford road (and that proposal is also supported by the argument for a complete tourist ring-road around the South Island). However, the end-points of the proposed Haast-Hollyford road appear to be fixed, unlike the various options considered for the Karamea - Nelson route. I don't think it helps much with deciding on a title, but is an interesting benchmark for a new article. Here is another benchmark: Proposed Melbourne rail extensions. So perhaps a title could be "Proposed road through North-west Nelson" Marshelec (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Yes, perhaps. The only niggle that I have is that Karamea isn't in North-west Nelson, but on the West Coast. But maybe we'll have to live with that. "Proposed Karamea–North-west Nelson road" would be more accurate, but is a bit of a mouthful. Schwede66 09:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)