History "loved to death"

There has been a call to restrict the number of Australians who visit Gallipoli, according to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald (4.4.08) entitlted "Call for a Cap on Gallipoli Crowds". It basically states that as a result of an increase interest in history among Australians , the number of Australians who visit Gallipoli has increased and this has lead to a degredation of the environment . The upshot is that there is some discussion about limiting the number of tourists to Gallipoli , because according to historian Joan Beaumont the site is in danger of being "loved to death" and thus "further degredation of Gallipoli is inevitable."

Over the years attendance at Anzac Day services at Gallipoli has grown, so obviously there has been a renewed interest in public history by Australians, but perhaps the promotion of this site has come at a price. There seems to a fine line between promoting history and preserving it.
Furthermore the boundaries between history and tourism are nowdays blurred, creating a situation whereby shaping historical awareness through tourism is a common means for the public to connect with their history.

So can the public love their history too much?
Will public history do a full circle and only be accessible to historians, the public having to acquire their sense of history through other means?

Pip