h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yours sound quite plain and straightforward, Mina! I'd be reluctant to use the word 'navigators', though. It's the sort of word that would lead fools to think "Hey, that sounds intriguing! Let's try that one!"

"Sure, but who takes a baby hiking in a pushchair? That's what carriers are for"

Stranger things have happened - I've seen people walking over moors in plastic high-heeled sandals.

Korma
Tikka Masala
Vindaloo
Phal

The categories I described above are kind of shorthand. 'Families' in this context would mean families with older kids who don't need pushchairs, and we wouldn't describe a site as being simply 'suitable for families'; it's a little more complicated than that.

I took a friend who is an 'experienced navigator' out on a - let's be numerical for a moment - category three site last year. He's a big fella and had a miserable time getting stuck in wet sections of the paths. On the other hand, we know a particularly hardy wheelchair-bound guy who loves going to Dunsford, which we'd put in category two. So it's important that we get away from the idea of saying that site A is suitable for user group X whereas B is suitable for user group Y, because classifying people often doesn't work. And permit-only and closed sites, included in category four, would not be suitable for even experienced navigators.

The idea is that we'd set a list of criteria that any site should meet to be part of any given grade: so, for example, a site in category one should have an 'Access For All' path that allows all visitors to access the key areas of a reserve, should host at least one event per year targetted specifically at a disabled user group and be able to use a greater proportion of the access budget to make improvements. On the other hand, a category three site may be a steep-sided wet woodland in the middle of nowhere that nobody ever visits and would only benefit from a waymarked path.

It makes no sense at all to try to make all twenty or so woodlands auitable for everyone to visit. Some would be ruined by any extra infrastructure; some are only visited by a few people evry year; some have only a couple of parking spaces... and so on. My plan is to set four access standards and decide which could be improved to the next standard up and which couldn't. We'll be able to say 'Reserve X is level, has parking which could be dedicated to disabled users, is high-profile and has a good volunteer crew, and is pretty stunning. So let's push more of the budget towards X than Y, because Y is never realistically going to suitable for anyone but the wellie brigade.'

2legs, you're right. At the moment, we have:

A* = Fully supported access
A = Supported access
B = Unsupported access
C = Permit only site
D = Closed site

And also promotional and people-friendly sites, which are categories for something slightly different. Oh, and 'havens' too. And four categories of families that might visit.

So you might have a people-friendly unsupported access haven that's of particular interest to the binocular family. Yikes.


I think paily is on the right track (ho, ho). 'Tame', 'Gentle', 'Tough', 'Wild' - something along those lines would work, I think.

Well that's my point, if you were going hiking would you take a pushchair? Maybe, if you had a mountain bike pushchair, maybe not. If you wanted a nice family walk then you probably would expect to be able to take one, so if it's not suitable then I think it would be helpful if that were clear.

Personally I've shoved those little buggies over some amazingly stupid ground in my time, but not really ideal and bits tend to fall off with alarming frequency.

Can't believe I didn't see the page turned. I'll get me coat...

Sites that are accessible by everyone; wheelchair users and able-bodies folk alike: Piece of Cake

Sites that are suitable for families and inexperienced walkers: Bring a Picnic

Sites that are fairly wild but still accessible for hardy walkers and ramblers: Only If You're Hardcore

Sites that are completely wild and unmaintained (for example heavy bogs) where there are no paths or visitor infrastructure. Some of these sites will be closed to the public: Are You Sure About This?

Here's my suggestions, plus illustrations:

Sites that are accessible...
--> Wheelchair Accessible (picture of wheelchair user on flat ground)

Sites that are suitable...
--> Walker Accessible (picture of person walking over flat ground)

Sites that are fairly wild...
--> Rambler Accessible (picture of person walking over bumpy ground)

Sites that are completely wild...
--> Minimally Accessible (picture of man knee deep in squidge)
--> Closed (red cross over picture of man)


Alternatively, you could use a Lake District system:
Motorway (wide track, steps added for conservation)
Path (visible erosion of the soil to reveal gravel/rocks)
Sheep track (flattened grass/slightly eroded soil)
Parish boundary (straight line, sod all path, plenty of odd dips and natural barriers)

Alex