Talk:Lang Ayre

Overkill (...'physical' map...)
You have reverted my edit for the wrong reasons. It is quite unnecessary and very clumsy to want to stress the term " physical map and compass" rather than just "map and compass" or "map-reading skills are needed". In your edit summary you cite your reason for revertimg me to a local newspaper story about some person bimbling along with no navigational equipment or skill and a flat phone battery, getting themselves lost in clag and needing rescuing. That's no justification whatsoever for explicitly stating in the article (and, worse still, in a potential DYK Hook) that a real, printed map is required, as opposed to other recognised forms of hillwalking navigation aids, such as GPS or phone/sat nav app. One person's failure to go out prepared shouldn't slew an article that you hope to put on the main page. You would need to cite an extremely good sorce if you intend to imply that electronic navigation aids are not appropriate to reach this beach and that only a real, physical map will do. (I say this as an experienced mountaineer who always prefers to use a physical map and a real compass, but I would never push my personal choice into a Wikipedia article about my local hills, when other recognised devices would do the job adequately. So please reinsert my edit, or cite a much better reason not to. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi - I must respectfully disagree with your opinion on this matter. While I totally agree that for most intents and purposes electronic forms of navigation such as sat-nav apps are perfectly adequate - and more convenient - to get you from point A to B and back again, I don't think it is controversial to suggest that a sat-nav with a flat battery is no more useful to its user than a paperweight. Therefore, to stay safe on a long walk such as this, there is little safer alternative than a paper map. I would agree that the person in the article I referenced in my revert was certainly ignorant, but I don't think you can reasonably say that his chances of being able to get back safely himself wouldn't have been significantly higher if he'd taken a paper map and compass with him (assuming he was competent in reading and using). While a completely lost person in a life threatening situation like this is (thankfully) a rare occurrence, people who ought to know better do get caught out like this, and especially when the landscape around this area features steep cliffs and is prone to low lying mist, having as foolproof a method of navigation available at all times is paramount.
 * For a source on this, see this route to Ronas Hill and back on the Ordnance Survey website - the route details section has directions from the Country Walking Magazine, and in what looks to me like a standard disclaimer it advises the use of a paper map. I don't have a copy of the magazine in question, but would this be satisfactory? Also, I did not say that the beach cannot be reached without using a paper map - I said "walkers are advised to be familiar with the usage of a physical map and a compass to be able to navigate back with poor visibility ." Again, I don't think this is particularly controversial. I am more than willing to add some sort of explanation along the lines of "in case your sat nav dies" to the text to make it more unambiguous what I am getting at.
 * For the record, the DYK hook referencing the physical map was not my suggestion - I would rather have the hook simply refer to the length of the beach. I did not think my mention of a physical map would be particularly noteworthy (or controversial!) Let me know your thoughts. Griceylipper (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry,, but I fear you're missing the point. First off, this is not a long walk, it's clearly a moderate 5km walk, rising to heights no more than 450 metres. It's hardly a full day hike to a remote Scottish Munro, or to the summit of Mont Blanc. We do not give advice on which precise types of safety equipment to carry in normal encyclopaedia articles about UK hills or mountains; less so for a 5km moorland walk to a beach. Your response above leaves me feeling you're trying to use this article as a platform to tell people what to take with them outdoors. Just saying something along the lines of 'map reading skills' or 'familiarity with map and compass' is fine, which is what all guidebooks say. If you can quote from the Cicerone Press guidebook a sentence that explicitly advises walkers should carry a physical map alongside a compass to undertake this particular route, then I will acquiesce. But I don't believe for one moment it does, and I feel your insistence on inserting what's really just trivial and unnecessary advice to walkers into this particularly benign article (for which, well done on creating it, by the way) only services to make it sound a bit silly. Your justification of basing it on a standard disclaimer on the walking website, cited above, is pure WP:SYNTH. And so, if this lovely new article is going on the main page, I argue that stating a physical map must be carried is quite inappropriate.  (But for what it's worth, I prefer your original DYK hook, and not those of the other editor.) See my small, but significant, suggested text change below:
 * Your text: The route...over Ronas Hill is prone to low-lying mist, so walkers are advised to be familiar with the usage of a physical map and a compass to be able to navigate back with poor visibility.
 * My recommended text: The route...over Ronas Hill is prone to low-lying mist, so walkers are advised to be familiar with using a map and compass to navigate back in poor visibility.
 * Even that, I feel is unnecessary as we're an encyclopaedia not a guidebook on how to do walking routes, but I'd be happy for you to leave my amended version in, but not yours as it stands. And whatever you do, don't add warning about 'in case your sat nav dies' - that would sound even dafter than it does at present. I really am sorry to come across as nit-picking and pedantic, but I don't sense you have much perspective on UK hillwalking, but you clearly do have a laudable wish to see people go safely in our hills, as indeed do I. This article - and Wikipedia in general - simply isn't the place to do it.  Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Collafirth Hill - geograph.org.uk - 345142.jpg Hi . I mean no ill-will by this, however might I suggest that your idea of a "long walk" will probably be a bit biased, seeing as you are a mountaineer? I am sure that to the average reader of Wikipedia, a minimum of 10km would absolutely be considered a long walk, especially when you take into consideration the terrain - you can't just walk in a straight line, you have to weave around thousands of boulders for a good proportion of the way there (see picture). Whether or not you think I have much perspective on UK hillwalking is irrelevant - this article ought to be written with the average reader in mind, not just those readers who are mountaineers themselves.
 * Regardless of whether you think the information I have included is "silly", if you believe that the information I have included is not considered encyclopaedic, and therefore shouldn't be included - that I consider a totally fair reason to remove the info. Now, I am happy to alter the text to your suggested version based on this, however if you'll humour me for an enquiry of my own - forgetting the difference between paper/electronic devices for the moment, is the point that a walker should take a map/compass at all considered encyclopaedic? Perhaps this statement would also be considered too close to the content of a guidebook, and should be removed entirely? I personally am finding it difficult to discern where the line should be drawn. I am not trying to be deliberately contrarian here, I just want what's best for the article and Wikipedia as a whole - which I am sure is also your aim. Once we come to a consensus on this I will make the edits, and strikethough the relevant alt hook for the DYK. I do appreciate your patience with me on this matter! Griceylipper (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A hasty holding reply (am • in a break at a James Arthur concert), then

away for a week's walking holiday (with m & c). Its worth discussing further, so will try to put thoughts down when I can. Best Nick Moyes (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)