Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 4

Walking Track Classification System
1. Statement of Intent
This policy sets out the PWS position on the relationship between the various extant trackclassification schemes, lists the elements of each scheme and clarifies the context in which they
are most appropriately used.

2. Objective
To clarify and describe the appropriate use of walking track classification schemes by the PWS.
The policy also clarifies the guidelines for the use of safety barriers on all walking tracks.

3. Background
Track classification schemes are management frameworks for specifying the levels and standardsof development and infrastructure that are appropriate on walking tracks. Such schemes typicallydelineate both minimum and maximum limits for development – for example specifying both upperand lower acceptable widths for nature trails and high-grade tracks, but may also include criteriasuch as recommended party sizes or publicity.
3.1

PWS Track Classification Scheme

Following a recommendation of the 1994 Walking Track Management Strategy for the TasmanianWilderness World Heritage Area, the PWS adopted a seven-tiered track classification scheme. The
scheme was slightly revised in 2003 as a result of a review by the Bushwalking and Track Review(BATR) Panel in partnership with the PWS to address concerns of key stakeholders about
particular elements of the original specifications, and was adopted as the PWS’s primary trackclassification system in 2004. The PWS classification scheme is prescriptive, ie. it specifies track
standards as guidelines for management.
3.2

Australian Standard Walking Tracks (AS-2156.1)

A track classification scheme with a similar structure to the PWS scheme was adopted byStandards Australia in 2001. The previous version of this policy, adopted in 2004, attempted acorrelation between the seven-tiered PWS scheme and the six-tiered Australian Standard scheme.
This alignment was neither accurate (the two schemes have different numbers of levels and, insome cases, utilise differing elements for classification) nor appropriate (the two schemes weredeveloped for different purposes). As a result, there has been considerable scope for PWS usersof the schemes to be confused or misinformed.
3.3

Other classification systems

In 2010 the Victorian government’s Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), in
collaboration with other agencies, developed a five-tiered Australian Walking Track Grading
System for grading the recreational difficulty of tracks and communicating that information towalkers. The grading system benchmarks to the AS 2156 classes (i.e. a Grade 3 walk corresponds
to a Class 3 track), except that a Grade 5 walk corresponds to both Class 5 and 6 tracks.
The Tasmanian PWS has used the system on some Great Short Walk signs, and may adopt it
more broadly at some stage in the future. However, this scheme is designed primarily as a systemfor conveying information to users, not as a technical basis for assessing and prescribing track
conditions, and so would not replace either the PWS or AS 2156 schemes described above.
Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 1 of 13

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

3.4

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 4

Safety barriers

A PWS policy on safety barriers is necessary to address inconsistencies associated with existing
standards and to provide a framework for assessing requirements for barriers that aligns with the
PWS Visitor Risk Policy and is applicable to local conditions encountered in Tasmania. As this isintegrally related to the relevant walking track’s class it is included herein as part of the overarching
Track Classification Scheme.
Existing standards for design of safety barriers include:Australian Standard AS 2156.2 - 2001 Walking tracks – Part 2: Infrastructure design(guidance).



The Building Code of Australia (BCA), also known as the National Construction Code(NCC), Volume 1: Section D2.16 and Volume 2: Part 3.9. The BCA requirements arestatutory for all Class 1 – 9 buildings.

Note: Australian Standard AS 1657 – 1992 Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and ladders - Design,
construction and installation is generally not applicable to visitor infrastructure (this standard is intended
for provision of safe workplaces for employees in a workplace context).

There are a number of issues with AS 2156.2:
AS 2156.2 provides a framework for specification of barriers on walking track structures but
appears to exclude other tracks (specifically on natural ground or fill). This interpretation is
not entirely clear; the term ‘walking track structures’ is not precisely defined.



For the higher track classes (Class 1- 2), the guidance given by AS 2156.2 actually
exceeds the requirements of the BCA. For example, AS 2156.2 recommends Type A
barriers for effective fall heights over 1.5m on Class 1 tracks, whilst the BCA requires nonclimbable (effectively Type A) barriers on buildings only where the effective fall heightexceeds 4m.



The guidance provided by AS 2156 can be overly conservative, particularly for tracks ofClass 3 – 4 when compared to the outcomes of PWS visitor risk assessments.

Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 2 of 13

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 4

4. Policy
4.1

Alignment with the Australian Standard (AS 2156)

Classes 1-6 of the AS 2156 scheme correspond broadly (but not exactly) to the W1, W2 and T1-T4
classifications of the PWS scheme, as illustrated in the following diagram, with the correlation
increasingly divergent for lower class tracks. Furthermore, the PWS scheme also includes routes,
defined as walking corridors that are largely track-free although they may include some paddevelopment (a pad being a visibly-trampled corridor with largely intact litter or vegetation cover).
Detailed specification tables for the two schemes are compiled on the following pages.
Comparison of the PWS and AS 2156 track classification schemes

4.2

PWS

W1

W2

AS 2156

1

2

T1

T2
3

T3
4

T4
5

R
6

Use of the track classification systems

The PWS scheme is better suited for prescribing the conditions of many Tasmanian walking tracks,
particularly the extensive network of unimproved tracks, mainly because the AS scheme lacks
detail, for low-grade tracks and routes in particular. (For example, in the AS scheme thespecifications for Grades 4-6 provide no guidelines for track width, and the scheme has no
category for routes, both necessary for the effective management and monitoring of such tracks).
However, the AS scheme is useful for assessing and specifying the condition of high-grade tracks,
and particularly of track infrastructure such as elevated structures, because it is nationallyrecognised as an industry standard and links to other Australian Standards such as building
specifications.
For these reasons the PWS will use both schemes as tools for the planning, provision andmaintenance of walking tracks across lands managed by PWS, the choice of scheme
depending on the context and application.
The AS 2156 documentation notes the primary elements for classification are track conditions(surface and drainage), gradient, signage, infrastructure and terrain, and describes how to utilise
these. The risk management, management intervention and publicity specifications are provided as“guidance for managers” only and, in the case of PWS, are more appropriately defined by theService’s Visitor Risk Management Policy (P-002) and Reserve Standards Framework (RSF),
drafted in 2008.
The PWS’s Information Management System (IMS) records both classifications for each track with
the AS-2156 class listed as a walking track asset sub-type and the PWS class listed on themetadata tab for the relevant track.
4.3

Safety barriersThis PWS policy is intended to extend and clarify the guidelines for barriers on all walking tracks
and associated structures, in a manner that is practical to implement in the majority of situations
and is consistent with outcomes from the PWS Visitor Risk Calculator. It is intended to provide
consistency between track infrastructure and the BCA for the higher track classes. The policy
utilises the principles of AS 2156.2 relating to design of barriers and calculation of effective fallheights. In particular:
Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 3 of 13

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 4Barrier types A, B, C and E are as described in AS 2156.2 (note that Type D barriers are
excluded from PWS policy as they are not considered safe for children).

Effective fall heights are calculated as per AS 2156.2.

Structural design of barriers (for strength) should comply with AS 2156.2.

The barrier standards tabulated on the following page represent a range of installations that will
likely comply with (or exceed) the requirements of a PWS Visitor Risk Assessment. Where a risk
assessment undertaken in accordance with the Visitor Risk Management Policy (P-002)
determines that a safety barrier is to be installed the barrier should be of a type specified in Table
1.
Important: Where there is potential for installation to incur high capital cost, have significant
environmental impact or compromise the visitor experience, the proposal must be considered in
the context of a site-specific Visitor Risk Assessment and the Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA)
process. The outcome of either of these processes may take precedence over this policy.

Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 4 of 13

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 3

Application to safety barriers
Generally barriers on built structures (e.g. viewing platforms, bridges and walkways) should comply with the requirements of Track Class T1
or higher, as appropriate. The recommendations for barriers on Track Classes T2, T3, T4 and R generally apply to “natural” fall heights
associated with the terrain being traversed.
The PWS Visitor Risk Policy and risk calculator underpins this policy. Where required a visitor risk assessment should be undertaken toverify the appropriate installation of barriers on tracks or built structures.
Table 1PWS Acceptable Risk Level
SevereSubstantial
Moderate
NeutralHeff (m)0 – 1.0
1.0 – 1.5
1.5 – 3.0
3.0 – 5.0
5.0 – 10.0
10.0 +

W1 (& BCA)
W2
T1
None
None
None
B
C
None
B
C
C*
A
B
C
A
A
C
A
A
C
Built structures & built tracks

PWS Track Class
T2
None
None
None
C*
E
C*
E
C*

T3
T4
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
E
None
None
E
None
E
None
Tracks

R
None
None
None
None
None
None

Application

Type A:
Type B:
Type C:Type C*:Type D:
Type E:

Max. opening 125mm, does not facilitate climbing, min. height 1000mm
Max. opening 125mm, min. height 1000mm
Max. opening 500mm, minimum height 900mm
Barrier required one side only (generally side with greatest fall height)
N/A
Handhold (e.g. chain or rope), generally on opposite side to fall height

Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 5 of 13

For barrier details refer to AS 2156.2

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

5

Procedures

5.1

Factors to consider when classifying a track

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 3

The PWS Track Classification Scheme is intended as a prescriptive classification, specifying
track standards as guidelines for management (see following table). These include physicalfactors (width, surface & drainage, gradient, infrastructure) which are primary elements ofthe scheme and important to consider when constructing or upgrading a track; but no lessimportant are the guidelines for subsequent management of visitor use.
In considering the appropriate class for a track, contextual factors are also important. What
does/will the track provide in terms of recreational opportunities and how does this relate toor differ from other tracks in the region? Environmental values and impacts, andmanagement practicality must also be considered.
When classifying existing tracks, existing conditions must be considered.
This doesn’t mean a track cannot be prescriptively classified differently to what the onground situation suggests (e.g. managed to a lower class), but the track’s existing
physical condition, use and the likely management input required to affect this changemust be considered. If a downgraded classification isn’t likely to be practical then there
is little point in prescribing it.
It is important to be mindful of the relationship between track classes and the PWS Reserve
Standards Framework (RSF) categories for the site(s) containing the track, whichthemselves specify other standards for management.
5.2

How to change the class of a track
While a track’s class is intended to be prescriptive and so guide management, incircumstances where a track’s use or level of development has become incompatible
with its prescriptive class, or such a change is proposed, then a change of track class
may be considered.

A proposal to change a track class (upgrade or downgrade) requires assessment andapproval in accordance with the RAA system (Environmental Risk Management
Policy).
This may be a RAA specifically for this purpose or form part of a RAA for the related
activity that is driving the need to consider a track class change.
The track classification must be consistent with the Reserve Standards Framework(RSF) zoning.
In considering changes to track classes, one must be mindful also of the Reserve
Standards Framework (RSF) context as each RSF category only provides for a limited
range of track classes (i.e. a proposed change to a track class may also require achange to RSF category, or vice versa). Such changes may also have ramifications forother assets or plans related to the site; consider this carefully.
5.3

Explanatory notes

It should be noted that the Walking Track Classification System has considerable flexibility
built in; as such, the system provides for discretion and consideration of contextual factors in
its application. However, such flexibility should be exercised consistently and equitably.
Examples of this built flexibility are:Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 6 of 13

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036



Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 3

party sizes are “recommended” sizes only; and,campsite specifications state that “in suitable localities an area might have more than
one campsite”.

The following text provides an explanation of the intent and interpretation of various otherelements in the following specifications table.
Gradient
The Gradient specifications are provided as ‘guidance for managers’ to assist them in thedesign and modification of walking tracks. As such, the specifications with respect to track
gradients must be applied with a degree of flexibility, for two main reasons:

Much of the existing track network was established prior to the development andapplication of a track classification system. Indeed, the path of many tracks evolved
as the result of walkers following a line of convenience in negotiating terrain that isoften steep, and by its topographic nature restrictive of alternate routes of lesser
incline; and,Exact specifications would be impractical to implement – for example it would be
impractical to ensure that every metre of every T2 track was at a gradient of less than
20o.

Width
Similar to the above, it would be impractical to ensure every part of every track was less thanthe maximum width specified for the relevant track class, at least for unimproved tracks.
Hence, while the width specifications must also be interpreted with a degree of flexibility,
extended over-width sections should be avoided or addressed by some kind of management
intervention. Preferably no more than 10% of any five kilometre track section (or 10% of total
length for shorter tracks) should exceed the maximum prescribed width.
Furthermore, as a general rule, no part of any track other than designated “walks” (W1 andW2) should exceed 2 metres in width in the long term.
The width prescribed by the track’s classification should generally be considered the tread
width: that is, the total width of the trampled corridor (on unimproved tracks) or designatedwalking surface (on structures such as boardwalk).
Some types of constructed track (benching, turnpiking) necessarily require peripheralfeatures such as top or side drains, batters, etc. In these cases these peripheral features are
not considered part of a track’s width as far as the track’s class is concerned. It is envisaged
that such construction is unlikely to be undertaken on tracks of class T3, T4 and Routes.
As a general principle, the total width of the disturbed corridor occupied by a track should be
minimised.
Depth
The depth and extent of erosion considered acceptable for any track must take into accountthe visual and ecological impact of such erosion in the environment in question.
Depth limits are not specified for particular track classes but, notwithstanding the
aforementioned flexibility, as a general rule, erosion depths exceeding 25cm should be
avoided where possible. Active soil erosion on lower class tracks may be acceptable if it isexpected to stabilise or be arrested by future track work before the depth exceeds 25cm.

Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 7 of 13

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme

PWS P- 036

issus Date:

7 Ma 2004
Revision Date:

15th December 2014
Revision No: 3

Surfacing and drainage
The prevention or repair of muddy sections of track will generally be given a lower priority
than the prevention or repair of erosion or track widening except where mud churning is
causing or is associated with track widening or erosion.
The repair or re-routing of sections of excessively deep (ie. >25cm) mud-bowls may beundertaken on tracks of T2, T3 and T4 standard, and even on localised sections ofdesignated routes, as a low priority in the long term. Such repair should be undertaken using
techniques compatible with the track classification, eg. using rock infill or single-widthplanking.

6. Policy Owner
Grant Dixon

Track Monitoring Officer
APPROVED / NOT APPROVED-

t-^a^io(4Peter Mooney
General Manager
Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service

I Department of Primary
I Industries, Parks, Water &i Environment

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 8 of 13

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 3

PWS Tasmanian track classification scheme details
The following table list specifications for the various elements of the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service track classification scheme. The scheme isprescriptive, ie. it specifies track standards as guidelines for management.

W1
Overview Wheelchair standard

W2

T2

1.5k return / 3k loop

No limit.

Well drained, “shoe”
Surface & "Shoe" standard. Firm,drainage even, well drained. Edges standard. Reasonably

<2°.

firm.

No limit.

Steps and stairs may be
included.

Vegetation 300 mm at ground, 500
clearance mm at shoulder level,

300 mm at ground, 500mm at shoulder level,
2.2m height. No
obstacles.

Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

mm. <1.2m. Widthvariable.

sections < 500 mm
acceptable. Max 1m.

“Boot” standard. May berocky and uneven inplaces. Some mud andwater acceptable.
Extensive hardening
acceptable.

“Wet boot” standard.
Stabilisation & drainage
mainly for environmental
purposes but someconcessions to user
comfort. May be roughover extended sections.
Mud up to 200 mm deep
acceptable in places.

No limit.

No limit.

N/A<750 mm.

< 500 mm.

< 500 mm. Pads or tracks
to be kept to an absolute
minimum.

Improved
surfacing/drainage
minimal - forenvironmental purposes
only.

Improved
surfacing/drainage
minimal - forenvironmental purposes
only.

Improved
surfacing/drainage
minimal - forenvironmental purposes
only.

Mostly <8° (or 1:7 or
Mostly < 15° (or 1:3.7 or Mostly < 20° (or 1:2.8 or Limited by environmental Limited by environmental No restrictions.
14%), max 15° (or 1:3.7 27%) but may be steeper 36%) but may be steeper considerations only.
considerations only.
or 27%) over short (30 m) in places.
in places.
sections.

Steps No steps; ramps < 1:14

2.2m height. No
obstacles.

Route
Largely free of tracks.

2.0m. Wheelchair passing over most of track.
bays. Ramps 1020 mmwith handrails both sides.

Gradient Max 5° (1:11); mostly

T4

Bushwalking track, may Rough bushwalking track, Rough bushwalking track, Often indistinct tracks.
be extensively hardened. limited surfacing.
mostly unimproved.

Width 1.2-2.5m, preferably 1.5- 0.6-2.5m, preferably 1-2m >500 mm, generally >750 >500 mm but shortclearly defined.

T3

Standard nature trail

nature trail

Length 750m return / 1.5k loop

T1

Clear across width and to Mostly clear across width. Fairly easy navigation
Minimal; sufficient forabove head height.
Occasional obstacles.
under normal conditions. navigation.
Obstacles rare.
Some obstacles.

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 9 of 13

None.

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

W1

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 3

W2

T1

Bridges to full width,
signposts, interpretation
facilities, viewing
platforms. Shelters andbenches are acceptable,
but not picnic tables.
Track markers areunnecessary.

Bridges over all major
creeks and rivers.
Stepping-stones
acceptable; fords
acceptable where water
generally less than 100
mm deep.

Bridges over major
Bridges or otherBridges or othercreeks and rivers notconstructed crossings
constructed crossingsnormally safely fordable generally not required if generally not provided,<500 mm deep. Bridges major creeks and rivers
except for essential
OK to minimise erosion. are normally safely
environmental purposes.
Log crossings, cablefordable, except for
Natural crossingsbridges, flying foxes &environmental purposes. preferred. Flood delays
swing bridges acceptable. Rough log bridges
acceptable.
Some fords may be flood- acceptable but notprone.
necessary. Flying foxes
acceptable over rivers
which cannot normally beforded, but some fords
may be flood-prone.
Delays may be expectedunder abnormal
conditions.

None except for essential
environmental purposes.
Natural crossings
preferred.

Safety barrier generally
required for fall heights>1m.

Safety barrier generally
required for fall heights>1.5m.

Safety barrier generally
required for fall heights>3m.

Safety barrier may berequired for fall heights>5m.

Safety barrier may berequired for fall heights>10m.

None required.

Signs Directional & interpretive Directional & interpretive Directional signposts atstart of track andjunctions with tracks ofgrade T3 or higher;otherwise signs shouldrefer to main (T1) track
only (junctions with T4
tracks generally
unsigned).

Directional signposts atstart of track andjunctions with tracks ofgrade T3 or higher;otherwise signs shouldrefer to main (T2) track
only (junctions with T4
tracks generally
unsigned).

Directional signposts atstart of track andjunctions with tracks ofgrade T3 or higher;otherwise signs shouldrefer to main (T3) track
only (junctions with T4
tracks generally
unsigned).

Limited signs and only for Signs generally not
management purposes. provided.

Interpretive signs inexisting structures only.

Interpretive signs inexisting structures only.

Other signs may beinstalled for management
and safety purposes.

Infra-structure Bridges to full width,
signposts, interpretation
facilities, viewing
platforms. Shelters andbenches are acceptable
but not picnic tables.
Track markers areunnecessary.

Safety barriers Safety barrier generally
required for fall heights(refer to policy>1m.
section 4.3.2 fordetails)
signs provided.

signs provided.

T2

Other signs may be
Other signs may beinstalled for management installed for management
and safety purposes.
and safety purposes.

Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 10 of 13

T3

T4

Route

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

W1

W2

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 3

T1

T2

T3

Track markers Unnecessary

Unnecessary

Where necessary toensure that direction is
obvious except under
extreme conditions.

Campsites Not applicableNot applicable

At major camping nodes, Up to 12 tents, preferably Up to 8 tents, preferablysites for up to 25 tents
dispersed in groups of up dispersed in groups ofpreferably dispersed in
to four tents.
two to four tents.
groups of up to five tents. Toilets to be provided at Toilets of minimal design
Enclosed toilets to beprovided at sites of morethan 10 tents, or where
necessary forenvironmental or healthpurposes.

Where necessary toensure that direction is
obvious except under
extreme conditions.

Where necessary toensure that direction is
obvious except under
extreme conditions.

sites of more than 10
to be provided wheretents, or where necessary necessary forfor environmental orenvironmental or healthhealth purposes.
purposes.

T4

Route

Low-key. Track may bedifficult to follow inplaces.

For essential
management purposes
only.

Visibly impacted (longterm) sites for up to 4
tents.

Formation of campsites to
be avoided where
possible. Visibly impacted
Toilets of minimal design sites for up to four tents,
to be provided only where preferably at least
partially vegetated, arenecessary forenvironmental purposes. acceptable where
unavoidable or desirable
for environmental
purposes.
No toilets provided unlessessential forenvironmental purposes.

Usage levels No restrictions.

Max party size Recommended max 25.

Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

No restrictions.

To be defined whererequired for social,environmental andmanagement purposes.

To be defined whererequired for social,environmental andmanagement purposes.

To be defined whererequired for social,environmental andmanagement purposes.

Recommended max 25.

Recommended max 13;
may be increased to a
maximum of 17 forspecific tracks upon
investigation andassessment.

Recommended max 13;
may be increased to a
maximum of 17 forspecific tracks upon
investigation andassessment.

Recommended max 8.
Recommended max 6.
Recommended max 6.
Party sizes of less than 6 Party sizes of four will be Party sizes of four will bewill be encouraged.
encouraged.
encouraged.

While recognising
circumstances for groupsizes up to 13 persons,for environmental andcrowding reasons, party
sizes of 6 or fewer will be
encouraged.

While recognising
circumstances for groupsizes up to 13 persons,for environmental andcrowding reasons, party
sizes of 6 or fewer will be
encouraged.

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 11 of 13

To be defined whererequired for social,environmental andmanagement purposes.

To be defined whererequired for social,environmental andmanagement purposes.

Up to 8 acceptable on
Up to 8 acceptable insome T4 tracks in robust some demonstrably
areas, subject torobust areas, subject toenvironmental conditions. environmental conditions
including pad and trackformation.

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

W1

W2

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 3

T1

T2

T3

Guided tours Licences required.

Licences required.
Permitted but licences
Permitted but licences
Permitted but licences
Client to Guide ratio 24:1 Client to Guide ratio 24:1 required and numbers of required and numbers of required and numbers of
trips may be restricted.
trips may be restricted.
trips may be restricted.
with max group size ofwith max group size ofWalks up to 2 hours
Walks up to 2 hours
25.
25.
Client to Guide ratio 6:2
duration: Client to Guide duration: Client to Guide with a minimum of 2
ratio 24:1 with max group ratio 24:1 with max group guides per group.
size of 25.
size of 25.

Publicity No restrictions.

Route guides No restrictions.

Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

No restrictions.

No restrictions.

Day and overnightwalks: Client to Guide
ratio 5:1 with a minimumof 2 guides per group
unless prior approval
received.

Day and overnightwalks: Client to Guide
ratio 5:1 with a minimumof 2 guides per group
unless prior approval
received.

No restrictions - may be
included in maps, tourist
brochures etc

Generally no restrictions, Low-key publicity
but may be discouraged if preferred.
(for eg) overall usage
T3 tracks may be
restrictions areincluded on maps.
necessary.

Acceptable but authors
encouraged to consult
with PWS. Published info
to be compatible withmanagement objectives.

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Acceptable but authors
Acceptable if sparsely
encouraged to consult
written. Consultation
with PWS. Published info encouraged.
to be compatible withmanagement objectives.

Page 12 of 13

T4
May be permitted.
Client to Guide ratio 4:2
with a minimum of 2
guides per group.

Route
May be permitted under
stringent conditions.
Client to Guide ratio 2:2
with a minimum of 2
guides per group.

Discouraged.

Discouraged.

Not included on maps
except for PWS
management purposes.

Not included on maps
except for PWS
management purposes.

Authors encouraged tokeep route descriptions
vague.

Authors encouraged tokeep route descriptions
vague.

Discouraged.

Discouraged.

Applicability:

PWS Policy and Procedures

PWS wide

Document Title and Reference No:

Status: Approved

PWS Track Classification Scheme
PWS P- 036

Issue Date:
7 May 2004
Revision Date:
15th December 2014
Revision No: 3

Australian Standard: Walking Tracks (AS 2156.1-2001)
The following table summarises specifications for the various elements of the Australian Standard – Walking Tracks (AS-2156.1). It is provided here forcomparative purposes, but note that (as explained previously) there is no direct correlation between the PWS and AS classes below class 3/T1 and theschemes are best used independently for different purposes. The PWS class ‘Route’ has no corresponding class in the AS scheme.

1

2

Overview High use, easy access,suitable for wheelchair use,interpretation provided

Terrain No previous experience
required.

Width >1.2m.

43Slightly modified
environments, moderate
numbers

Slightly modified
environments, moderate
numbers

No previous experience
required.

No bushwalking experience
required. May encounter
steep slopes, watercrossings, etc. Users
responsible for own safety.
Generally <1.2m, variable.

Users need to be self-reliant. Users need to be self-reliant. Users need to be self-reliant.

Surface & Broad, surfaced track suitable Generally a modified or
hardened surface.
drainage for wheelchairs.

Generally a modified surface, Generally distinct without
sections may be hardened.
major modification.

Gradient As per AS 1428; <1:14 (or 4° Generally <1:10 (or 6° or

Generally <1:10 (or 6° or10%), but may exceed 1:10
for short sections.

Signs Frequent.

10%), minimal steps.

May include platforms, seats
and barrier rails.
Frequent.

Weather Not applicableNot applicable

Risk management Tracks and built facilities

Tracks and built facilities
managed for public risk and managed for public risk andinspected at 30 day intervals. inspected at 3 monthintervals.
Moderate to highManagement Highintervention
Publicity Will normally appear on
maps.

Department of Primary
Industries, Parks, Water &Environment

Will normally appear on
maps.

Minimal facilities, few
encounters

6High use, easy access,interpretation provided>900mm.

or 7%).
Steps only with alternate
ramp access.
Infra-structure May include platforms, seats
and barrier rails.

5

Often indistinct tracks inremote areas.

Limited modification to natural No modification of the natural
surfaces. Alignment may be environment.
indistinct in places.
Limited to environmental and May include steep sections of May include steep sections ofmanagement considerations unmodified surfaces
unmodified surfaces

Generally only for specific
Generally only for specific
Generally only for specific
Generally not provided
safety and environmental
safety and environmental
safety and environmental
considerations.
considerations.
considerations.
OK for direction, management Minimal, for management and Limited, for management
Not provided
and interpretation purposes. directional purposes.
purposes.
Severe weather may affect
Severe weather may affect
Severe weather may affect
Severe weather may affectnavigation and safety.
navigation and safety.
navigation and safety.
navigation and safety.
Built facilities managed for
Built facilities managed for
Built facilities managed forNot be managed for public
public risk and inspected at 6 public risk and inspected at 6- public risk and inspected at 6- risk. Users responsible formonth intervals.
12 month intervals.
18 month intervals.
personal safety.
Moderate

Low to moderate

Low

Negligible

Will normally appear onmaps.

May be shown on maps

May be shown on maps

Will not be marked on maps

PWS Track Classification Scheme Policy
PWS P- 036

Page 13 of 13