Anyone have anything they'd like to rant about?

They could make trails less straight and smooth. It's more interesting and you don't go as fast.

Unless signed as a one-way, it must be ridden as a two-way. User's responsibilities to ride with caution and defensively is the way. All of the other gibberish on this thread are 1st world probs and the modern emo-hipster lack of personal responsibility IchMoi attitude.

some of the best descents are the best climbs and vice-versa. Since nobody is 'forced' to ride and it is an experience that enriches our lives, then be frikkin responsible about what YOU do in a multi-use enviro.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

They could make trails less straight and smooth. It's more interesting and you don't go as fast.

---

No way, that would suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canada1

These comments tell us why we are being blocked out of some trails. The 90 % of trail users that don't bike don't care about our cool berms and jumps. But they do care about guys flying at them with no possibility of stopping in time. We are our own worst enemy.

---

There's a lot of talking past each other happening here. Recklessly bombing normal multi-use/direction trails with lots of foot and uphill traffic is obviously supremely douchey behavior. I don't know what local trails funken and toast are thinking of in their respective 'hoods, but a couple Park City examples I can think of would be climbing up Trestle, Black Forest or Spin Cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn

They could make trails less straight and smooth. It's more interesting and you don't go as fast.

---

A couple years ago the FS straightened and smoothed out about 1.5 miles of trail here that is a popular hike and MTB descent, which of course only invited idiot bikers to go too fast. That decision still baffles me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

At least around here, it's because the land managers know a lot about forestry and almost nothing about recreation management.

---

That's a little too easy, isn't it? Are these multi-use trails, or bike-only trails you'd like to see gain directional marking?

Sure that’s the answer. But questioning why someone else is hiking or biking up a trail in the woods isn’t. From most peoples perspective we’re just being entitled idiots, and they’re right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jono

That's a little too easy, isn't it? Are these multi-use trails, or bike-only trails you'd like to see gain directional marking?

---

They are trails that are built to be directional and for bikes only, that are funded and maintained by the local bike club, and many of which contain large features that are entirely unsafe to be approached from the wrong direction (e.g. 30 foot gaps and large drops in steep terrain). But the land manager won't let us sign the trails as directional or as bike only because they have no idea how to manage recreation.

For example, the trail that this feature is on is technically multi-use, multi direction. Most bikers are smart enough to not try to ride up it, but every once in a while, a horse decides to walk up it and completely fucking destroys all of the landings.

Attachment 239889

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canada1

Sure that’s the answer. But questioning why someone else is hiking or biking up a trail in the woods isn’t. From most peoples perspective we’re just being entitled idiots, and they’re right!

---

Let's calm down a bit. It's a rant thread. We can all be a little irritated by others' actions without becoming irrational and plowing into them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

They are trails that are built to be directional and for bikes only, that are funded and maintained by the local bike club, and many of which contain large features that are entirely unsafe to be approached from the wrong direction (e.g. 30 foot gaps and large drops in steep terrain). But the land manager won't let us sign the trails as directional or as bike only because they have no idea how to manage recreation.

For example, the trail that this feature is on is technically multi-use, multi direction. Most bikers are smart enough to not try to ride up it, but every once in a while, a horse decides to walk up it and completely fucking destroys all of the landings.

---

Is there something written somewhere that doesn't allow the land manager to designate it directional and bike-only? 'Cause on the surface, from the looks of that trail, the manager is being retarded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

Is there something written somewhere that doesn't allow the land manager to designate it directional and bike-only?

---

Not that I'm aware of. At least I've never seen them give a clear reason for their thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

'Cause on the surface, from the looks of that trail, the manager is being retarded.

---

Yeah, pretty much. Like I said, they're foresters. They're good at cutting down trees and making money off of cutting down trees. They mostly views trails and recreation as an impediment to cutting down trees. And the agency is just behind the times - they're still stuck in the 70's, when the prime directive was to cut down as many trees as possible, and "recreation" meant hunting and fishing, which didn't require much in the way of on the ground management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

Not that I'm aware of. At least I've never seen them give a clear reason for their thinking.



Yeah, pretty much. Like I said, they're foresters. They're good at cutting down trees and making money off of cutting down trees. They mostly views trails and recreation as an impediment to cutting down trees. And the agency is just behind the times - they're still stuck in the 70's, when the prime directive was to cut down as many trees as possible, and "recreation" meant hunting and fishing, which didn't require much in the way of on the ground management.

---

This must be NFS land?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

This must be NFS land?

---

It's on state land. Dnrc manages it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

It's on state land. Dnrc manages it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

---

Gotcha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skaredshtles

Gotcha.

---

And, I should add, they get a lot of credit for letting us build the trails there at all. Not every land manager is on board with building trails like those. So credit where credit is due.

It's obviously not perfect though.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

They are trails that are built to be directional and for bikes only, that are funded and maintained by the local bike club, and many of which contain large features that are entirely unsafe to be approached from the wrong direction (e.g. 30 foot gaps and large drops in steep terrain). But the land manager won't let us sign the trails as directional or as bike only because they have no idea how to manage recreation.

For example, the trail that this feature is on is technically multi-use, multi direction. Most bikers are smart enough to not try to ride up it, but every once in a while, a horse decides to walk up it and completely fucking destroys all of the landings.

---

We've got similar examples--close to town trail (built by bikers) sees horses more than it should have to, and apparently since the trails aren't riddled with bikes after a rain that's the best time to get your horse out there. The divets usually buff out in two or three weeks. From the looks on most horsey riders' faces I think they strongly wish we weren't out there, but apparently not enough to build trails themselves. The bear bell and off leash dogs (not mine) have unexpected upsides.

A pair of parallel trails built on the DL a long time ago became "official" a few years ago and one got DH and the other XC right in their names. I don't recall seeing anyone going up the DH trail, ever, but the XC trail did acquire a down-facing teeter totter recently. Probably speaks more to Mtngirl's point, but obviously that trail is ridden both ways (just not on the teeter totter).

If anyone asks me for directions I usually tell them to get a map--and then point out which ways everyone seems to go. But obviously there's no such thing as a total bike-only trail, because we're all one bad mechanical from hiking. A better solution would be trails with the designated right of way reversed, so climbers yield to DH and everyone yields to bikes. I don't mind sharing space with anyone anywhere if that rule is followed on the rare trails where it's correct. That's a tiny fraction of places and it shouldn't be too much to ask that everyone stick to the rules--especially if your area has a few trails favoring DH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

They are trails that are built to be directional and for bikes only, that are funded and maintained by the local bike club, and many of which contain large features that are entirely unsafe to be approached from the wrong direction (e.g. 30 foot gaps and large drops in steep terrain). But the land manager won't let us sign the trails as directional or as bike only because they have no idea how to manage recreation.

For example, the trail that this feature is on is technically multi-use, multi direction. Most bikers are smart enough to not try to ride up it, but every once in a while, a horse decides to walk up it and completely fucking destroys all of the landings.

Attachment 239889

---

Looks like a nice trail!

I was in Santa Cruz going up and at an intersection this guys yells at this other guy for coming down the 'up'. The down guy says it goes both ways and that was the end of it. There were no signs anywhere, so I was thinking how the hell would anyone know. It was my first time there, so I had no idea either. It is a great up and a marginal down. Those heading down were not an issue for the people going up or vice versa. It wasn't a ripping down with berms and gaps. I think some people just bitch and whine to bitch and whine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackstraw

I think some people just bitch and whine to bitch and whine.

---

I mean, it's ok if you want to rant about that, but I think you really need to amp it up if you're gonna post that in this thread. PM Canada1, maybe he has a little angst to lend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canada1

Sure that’s the answer. But questioning why someone else is hiking or biking up a trail in the woods isn’t. From most peoples perspective we’re just being entitled idiots, and they’re right!

---

I don't know. There are TONS of trails that mountain bikers aren't allowed on... not many that hikers aren't allowed on, yet hikers scream pretty loud about it when they are asked to stay off a few downhill trails for their own safety.

That seems pretty entitled to me... like when I had to skid to a stop on a steep downhill on Super Bear in BC because a family was hiking up it with their toddler. I stopped in plenty of time, but it sure wrecked the flow for me.



The climbing trail that runs parallel is climb only for bikes.

These are close to town, heavily used trails on active timber land. There is usually space to have trails suited to everyone. Impact isn't a huge issue. It's all going to get clear cut.

If we were talking about some pristine remote area, yeah.. we have to share.. but no reason these places, where more people recreate cant have something for everyone.

I think part of the issue is that mountain bikers do most of the trail building and maintenance but are required by land managers to allow hikers/runners/dog walkers...

Super Bear has a sign at the bottom that specifically says downhill only no hiking up.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

For me, some one walking up against a sign is entirely different. Thats worthy of a comment.

x2

Good rants here on PB
https://m.pinkbike.com/news/nsmba-em...community.html

The link here http://nsmba.ca/trailsforall (look under "Privilege" is even more Onion-like.

It's weird. Kinda like the "war against Christmas" complaints.

I hear way more people complaining about being asked (required) to use different pronouns, names, etc for people than people actually asking for anything unreasonable...

I'll go.

I have ~30 rides and about 300-350 miles on my 2017 Transition Patrol Carbon that I've owned for 6 months. Not a hucker, generally pick clean lines, ride in a dry climate. 6/8 linkage bearings feel like shit. The remaining 2 that aren't fried are on their way. Never had a bike get the clap this early.

Talked to Transition and their response is "we sell bearing kits in our online store." :fuckyou:

So much for the core bros at Transition that'll "totally take care of you" I've heard so much about :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lifelinksplit

Fucking assholes who drive off road to "shuttle" the new DH trail while the volunteers are walking new trails ahead of their BLM meeting....

This is why we can't have nice things.

---

So wait; you have a good local DH trail, and there’s a legal way to car shuttle it, and I’d be an asshole if I shuttled it? Fuck me.

I’m with the Toast camp


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums