Talk:Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Smits Reef

Naming of parts

I propose to call the whole reef Smits Reef, with the other diving names applied to specific parts of the reef.

• The Maze can only refer to the jumble of boulders at the south east corner. This complies with common usage and will not be controversial.
• Horseshoe Reef will be used for the north eastern part, where the reef curves round the big indentation. It is the only part of the reef which in any way resembles a horseshoe that I know of.
• Birthday reef may be used for the part of the reef which was originally given that name if I can find out which part it is...

(WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 06:16, 6 September 2010 (EDT)

Guide status criteria for dive site

Wikivoyage criteria:

• Effectively covers most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions. Complies
• If practical, it should contain a listing of relevant destinations. (not relevant to dive site)
• The format should closely match the manual of style. Complies

Diver criteria:

• A suitably competent diver with little local knowledge should be able to plan a safe dive using the information provided.(in conjunction with the regional diving guide.) Complies

Checklist:

• Template present, all appropriate headings present Complies
• Style basically correct and complies with Wikivoyage recommendations. Complies
• A map or aerial photo is present for shore access sites, and displays useful information. A map should comply with the Wikivoyage map style conventions where this does not adversely affect usefulness. Complies
• GPS position data or other means of identifying position accurately without local knowledge. Complies
• All subheadings contain useful information unless the subheading does not apply to the site, in which case it is not shown. Complies
• At least one photograph of marine organism or feature of the site. Complies
• The site should be a sub-article of a regional dive guide. Complies

"technically an offense"

@Pbsouthwood: Thanks for explaining what you mean by "technically an offence". It is correct to say "it is illegal", because it is illegal whether or not it is enforceable. But if you think it is important to let readers know they will likely get away with it, we could clarify this for readers, using words from your edit summary:

"It is illegal to damage the reef life, but the law is unenforceable in most circumstances. Other divers tend to object to it, as this is what we dive to see, so be careful."

Ground Zero (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The situation is a bit complicated. The regultions under which the MPA was proclaimed are intended to protect the environment, but allow some activities which are known to damage the environment. Neither the regulations nor statutory law go into detail of what all might be considered an offence, nor all the circumstances in which they may be permitted, though survival would reasonably be one, as would plausibly unpredictable conditions. Divers are expected to take reasonable precautions to avoid damage, but what would be considered reasonable is neither defined nor tested in the courts. Also underwater conditions may overwhelm the abilities of less competent divers where a more competent diver may manage without difficulty, and there is no minimum competence requirement. Negligence or malicious intent could be very difficult to prove, even by an expert witness in most cases. In some cases the park authorities might consider a course of action an offense against their interpretation of the bylaws, while the actual legality of the action is unsettled. As I am not a lawyer, I am not competent to advise on the details, and the people I have asked who might be competent also choose not to advise, probably for similar reasons. I see no great advantage to explaining this vagueness in detail in the article. If you are licensed or competent to advise on South African law, I am willing to accept your greater expertise. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's illegal, then don't advise people saying they could sort of get away with it. SHB2000 (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"If you are licensed or competent to advise on South African law...." There's no need to be hostile about this. We're both trying, within our abilities, to provide the best advice to readers. You understand what you mean by "technically" here, but the point is to try to help readers understand what you mean. Using a vague word that hides a complex topic does not help readers understand the issue. It's a cop-out. I think we should try to do better. Ground Zero (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Not being hostile, just pointing out that this is a nuanced situation where it is easy to give misleading information. I do not think that your proposal is better than the original text, which while perhaps not ideal, is more accurate in my non-expert and non-professional opinion on the relevant law. I do not know whether your opinion on that law can be considered expert or professional. I also don't think that it is necessary or desirable to explain in the detail necessary to make it completely clear, but if you wish to do the research, you are free to do so. The primary point being that the legality of damaging reef life is unclear, complicated, and depends on circumstances. I also do not want people thinking that it is OK to damage the reefs because nothing can be done about it, nor do I want to just avoid the issue altogether, as divers should be mindful of the risk of environmental damage, and behave reasonably responsibly. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)