Fire Lookout Towers
GirlIsNoOne-PGO
Posts: 23 ✭✭
I was after some guidance on whether a fire lookout tower would be a suitable candidate. I have had a couple rejected due to "interfere with emergency services" which is not actually correct.
My supporting argument for these lookout towers is as follows:
- They are situated on remote hillsides and mountains and require exploration to get there.
- They are manned only 4 months of the year. These personnel are not "emergency services". They dont keep fire trucks at fire lookout towers, all work is done by radio. A person sitting at the bottom of a lookout tower can't interfere with the personnel work.
- Due to the remote locations, the lookout towers are used by 4wd enthusiasts, mountain bikers and cross country runners etc as a meeting point, as its one of only a few visible man made structures around.
- They are interesting to see, each one is constructed differently and the network across Australia to visibly cover the national parks is impressive.
- Common item in geocaching
- They do run public viewing days (in winter mainly) where public can climb the towers
I would like NIA is consider fire lookout towers as a possible POI. It would improve POI possibilities in some of the more remote areas.
Pic: Mt Cronin Lookout Tower, Tallaganda National Park, NSW, Australia
Pic 2: Mt Little Dick Fire Tower (not longer used), Bruthen Foresr District, Gippsland, Victoria Australia.
Best Answers
-
Gendgi-PGO
Posts: 3,425 Ambassador
Candidate: Fire Lookout Tower
Policy: Accept
Suggested Vote: ★★★★
ACCEPT if open to the public. Falls under the criteria of adventurous tourist attractions. REJECT lookout towers being used as private residences.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190308131229/https://plus.google.com/+NIAOps/posts/Uw3rzL352Ut
-
TheFarix-PGO
Posts: 4,988 ✭✭✭✭✭
That is not how pedestrian access is defined. Being fenced off has nothing to do with pedestrian access.
Answers
I would say, if they are acceble for the public or unused and now for history, i would accept them. If they are unvisitable or only partly open definately not
Like water towers, only those which are not fenced off would be eligible. The ones in your photos are fenced off, and thus would not normally be eligible.
The key here is "public access", and proving it. Presumably MOST such towers do not provide "public tours".
I am aware that in the US, many such fire towers can actually be "rented" for camping excursions. Kind of like rending a cabin, you literally pay for the time, and are allowed to sleep in them for your timeslot. Surely those would also be eligible, but again you may need to provide external documentation.
Candidate: Fire Lookout Tower
Policy: Accept
Suggested Vote: ★★★★
ACCEPT if open to the public. Falls under the criteria of adventurous tourist attractions. REJECT lookout towers being used as private residences.
Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190308131229/https://plus.google.com/+NIAOps/posts/Uw3rzL352Ut
Fenced off all the time - no pedestrian access - 1*
Open at some point in the year for "public access" such as tours or camping - no problem POI.
That is not how pedestrian access is defined. Being fenced off has nothing to do with pedestrian access.