# You Can't Handle This Trail!



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

One trailbuilder's thoughts on Stravaholes making cheater lines and shortcuts around all the TTFs.





 _Hint: read the trail builder part out loud in your best Jack Nicholson voice._

Stravahole: Hey, who closed off my cheater line around that rock garden? I'll never get that KOM now!

Trailbuilder: Son, we live in a world that has trails, and those trails have to be built by men and women with tools. Who's gonna do it? YOU, spandex warrior? YOU, Stravahole? I have put in more blood, sweat, and tears into these trails than you can possibly fathom. You weep for your cheater lines and shortcuts, and you curse those who close them off. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That closure of your cheater lines and shortcuts, while tragic to you, probably saved that trail from closure. And my existence, while grotesque, and incomprehensible to you, saves trails. You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at trailheads, YOU WANT ME on that trail, YOU NEED ME on that trail. We use words like armoring, drainage, and sustainability. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent building something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rides a race on the internet on the ribbon of trail that I provide, and then QUESTIONS THE MANNER IN WHICH I PROVIDE IT! I would rather you just said THANK YOU, and rode on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a tool and help build trail, either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you are entitled to.

Stravahole: Did you close off my shortcut?

Trailbuilder: I did the job&#8230;

Stravahole: DID YOU CLOSE OFF MY SHORTCUT???? 

Trailbuilder: YOU'RE GODDAMNED RIGHT I DID!!!! :madmax: :madmax: :madmax:


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

Well, this is just profound, isn't it?


----------



## Dave_schuldt (May 10, 2004)

We put turns in trails to slow people down and make if more fun. If you want to go super fast ride the road, and if you're afraid of the cars go to spin class.
Next time I'm out I'm going to move some BIG logs to tighten up a corner.


----------



## Dave_schuldt (May 10, 2004)

Define better.


----------



## Trail Ninja (Sep 25, 2008)

Dave_schuldt said:


> Define better.


I'm getting my helmet for this.


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

Trail Ninja said:


> I'm getting my helmet for this.


Helmet? I've got a pair of asbestos waders around here somewhere....


----------



## DaveVt (Jun 13, 2005)

Dave_schuldt said:


> We put turns in trails to slow people down and make if more fun. If you want to go super fast ride the road, and if you're afraid of the cars go to spin class.
> Next time I'm out I'm going to move some BIG logs to tighten up a corner.


I really dislike the concept of putting in a turn to slow people down. If your trail has to turn, you should build the turn to accommodate the speed most riders are carrying when they enter the turn. I like adding tech tread features and keeping sight lines somewhat tight to keep speed down better. If anyone has ever ridden Kimmers in Stowe, the top half is a good example of this concept not working so well.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

We build lot of trail by riding in the tread before the corridor work is done. That way the riders can "vote with their wheels" as to exactly where the tread flows, and when the YCC crews start there is already a high speed tread in place. After the necessary approvals the route is flagged and minor obstacles kicked aside to begin the process. The riders here are trained to ride in a tread this way. The tread is very easy to move or modify while it is developing, so I can literally tune it with my toe when necessary. This method produces trail with almost zero complaints and a high rider ownership level. Since these riders have become pretty trail aware, they also take care of a lot of the minor maintenance issues they encounter. We have been using this system for more than 20 years now, and while I realize it won't work in many types of terrain or situations, we have enjoyed it so far. We have a lot of visitors on these trails, many of whom come back regularly, so it seems that the rider fun index level is good.


----------



## Berkeley Mike (Jan 13, 2004)

Sometimes we simply cannot have riders in some areas near trails. It is plain and simple. There may be environmental reasons, design features to mitigate speed or safety, or simply the druthers of the land manager. Sometimes due to events, natural or otherwise, areas are closed.

Yet we always seem to have riders who believe that they don't need to adhere to what has been laid down. They give lots of reasons about skill levels, minimize their impacts, access rights, limited ride time, performance goals, their own personal trail building acumen...blah, blah, blah.

None of that does the general community any good.

In perfect trail world there would be no limitations and every trail would adhere to meet the personal standard of the truly cool riders who object to the character of the trails they have.


----------



## SSearchVT (Sep 6, 2007)

Going back to the original post and Stravaholes - if it's a cheater line how can you claim to be KOM? You didn't ride the same trail as everyone else. You may as well be on an e-bike or dirt bike doing the climbs - carries the same weight...


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

BMike- If I have a group (or single rider for that matter) of such too cool riders I usually offer them a suitable area to develop a trail route of the type they want. Turns out mostly they are too cool to do much, but it shuts them up and they avoid me, and occasionally it nets me a good route. I like trails with personality within the system so it works out.

Our system currently works well on private as well as local, county, state, tribal, and fed lands. We don't use any machinery, and we train the trail crews to positively engage and seek input from any riders that pass by. It's a different paradigm, to be sure.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

50cents said:


> Better would be more enjoyable, very sustainable and requires little maintenance.


More enjoyable for who?

If it's already well built and rides fine, in general I don't think I like the idea of someone just coming along and deciding it's up to them to change a line in a trail they didn't build, whether they're a 'master' or not.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

50cents said:


> Better would be more enjoyable, very sustainable and requires little maintenance.


 One shouldn't just randomly go " fixing lines or trails "without trail management/ landowner/stakeholders consent. One riders' enjoyable is anothers' hard line, too easy line, have to make a go around line. Picking up sticks or logs, that's fine. I will occasionally clean out an existing drain from a trail. Show up for a trail day or just pedal. If you can't clean the line, walk.


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

leeboh said:


> If you can't clean the line, *try it again*.


ftfy


----------



## Dave_schuldt (May 10, 2004)

DaveVt said:


> I really dislike the concept of putting in a turn to slow people down. If your trail has to turn, you should build the turn to accommodate the speed most riders are carrying when they enter the turn. I like adding tech tread features and keeping sight lines somewhat tight to keep speed down better. If anyone has ever ridden Kimmers in Stowe, the top half is a good example of this concept not working so well.


This trail is open to hikers, horses and runners so tech isn't a good idea. There's very little tech on this trail anyway so what's there people just ride around.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

50cents said:


> If the biking community had lived according to your rules thousands of really cool trails that exist today would never exist. Am I correct in assuming you would be OK with that?


Trust me, if more people lived by Leeboh's rules, there would be 1000 times as many cool trails as there are now, and we'd all have bellies full of good chili and tasty beverages.

And if he and his compadres go through what it takes to get a trail built, it's nobody's prerogative to show up out of the blue and 'fix' it. Though I'm sure help and collaboration is always more than welcome.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

50cents said:


> If the biking community had lived according to your rules thousands of really cool trails that exist today would never exist. Am I correct in assuming you would be OK with that?


I'll talk about my biking community, for the most part MA. Here trail access for mt bikes is still a hard fought battle, not all trails and not even all state properties are open to us. Illegal and rogue trails are a sure fire way to piss off the land manager and get trails and riding areas closed off to bikes. As well as unauthorized trail work " fixes" jumps, berms, and crappy wooden stunts or boardwalks. My chapter builds sustainable, well thought out trails with the landmanagers' approval. Most in our area are hiker/ biker trails. Some horse use as well. We could build so much more if we did not have to fix some idiots other work. We sometimes have to spend our time closing off rogue trails instead of trail building, really pisses me off. Just work with whatever land manger and get approval. Leads to a much better relationship. So, 50 cents , where do you do your trail work?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

'Bike friendly' in our neck of the woods probably means a little something different than it does in a lot of other places. KOMing the good stuff around here generally means you need to bring a lot more than just fitness to the table. And that's how we like it. :thumbsup:


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

50cents said:


> I know a Stravahole that is a master trailbuilder. He builds new trails and does re-routes on a regular basis. If he did a trail improvement on one of your trails that was a much better line than what you built could you accept that improvement?


If he makes a change on one of "his" trails, I may or may not like it, but being as it is his trail, and I didn't build it, then my opinion on the matter isn't worth much.

If he came to "my" trails, and made some change without permission from the land manager, or from someone within our group of builders (which has an agreement in place with the land manager), then yes I (we) would very much have a problem with that.

In fairness, if somebody changed a line, and it was "better" in the eyes of our build crew, then the new line would probably stay as long as the land manager was OK with it.

Point is, you just don't go out and change a trail without permission. This can cause all sorts of problems when there is an active group that builds and maintains a trail system with an agreement in place with the land manager. And if you're talking rogue trails, I think it's pretty well understood that you don't mess with somebody else's trail.

There doesn't seem to be a shortage people out there who aren't afraid to alter a trail by removing TTFs that they can't ride or straightening/short-cutting corners or bypassing TTFs to improve their times.

If I was into the whole Strava thing, I'd be pissed at people bypassing TTFs and straightening corners since generally those are the differentiators between skilled and unskilled riders. Anybody can go fast in a smooth straight line.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

50cents said:


> My most recent work (today) has been through the Superstition Land Trust in Gold Canyon AZ. We were working on a re-route project today. A couple days ago we were doing tread work on a long time hiking trail to make it biker friendly. Before that I was building a new extension trail that connects to the Grand Canyon Rim trail. Then before that I worked on a trail called the Blue Dot in Moab. The trail needed a 1,000 ft. Bypass to make the seven mile user built trail official. The trail was originally built 15 years ago.
> 
> Do you guys do videos of your work or are there any online videos of riders riding the trails you guys built?


 So, AZ? Is that sand or sand and sandstone? Or just sand and rock. I might be able to dig up some pics and videos of our stuff. Build might be one term. We work around the rocks and slopes that are presented to us. Big house sized rocks, granite ledge, boulders and rocks. With a little dirt in between. At Harold Parker SF, lots of rocks and short, punchy ridgelines in the forest, with 7 ponds. We also have to contend with wetlands and some conservation areas. Do you have to work around cactus and fragile soil issues? We also build a fair amount of boardwalk to go over swamps and wetland areas. A lot of our older trails are fall line hiking trails that need to be rerouted/fixed/closed off. We do get a fair amount of support from some of our local land managers . ( They like us) They will request some work to address an issue, in turn we usually get some headway on new trails or better lines we have been looking at. A plus/plus situation.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

twd953 said:


> And if you're talking rogue trails, I think it's pretty well understood that you don't mess with somebody else's trail.


Actually, IMO, if it's a rogue trail the builder has no real claim to it. Since it's not his property and he's not building with permission of the land owner, then he has no legal right to expect others to not mess with it. That's just one of the reasons to be legit.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

I agree that Rogue builders don't have any legal standing or ownership to any trail they make, but that doesn't mean that they aren't every bit as passionate or protective of their work.

We have one local riding area that has many decade long history of unauthorized trail building by many different builders and user groups (hikers, trail runners, equestrians, motorcyclists, adjacent land owners, and mountain bikers). It is a diverse enough collection of individuals that there isn't a lot of fierce territorial ownership over the trails since everybody eventually finds and uses the other groups trails, but there is some. 

But, if you go out and find some local DH guys "zone" and start messing with it, I doubt it will be well recieved.

But you are correct, it can be a bit of a wild west scenario. The land owner I mentioned above mostly turns a blind eye to the trails until somebody starts putting in rickety wood stunts, then they get agitated and threaten legal action. On more than one occasion the riding community has self policed some of the dangerous stuff and tore it down. Mostly dangerous because it looks like it was built by an 8 year old who stole his dad's hammer and a box of finishing nails. The somewhat passable stuff lingers until the land owner tears it down.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

twd953 said:


> But, if you go out and find some local DH guys "zone" and start messing with it, I doubt it will be well recieved.
> .


Nope - we're pretty protective of this little neighborhood rip. Quite a bit moreso than the 'legal' or public trails we've built actually.


----------



## zrm (Oct 11, 2006)

twd953 said:


> I agree that Rogue builders don't have any legal standing or ownership to any trail they make, but that doesn't mean that they aren't every bit as passionate or protective of their work.
> 
> We have one local riding area that has many decade long history of unauthorized trail building by many different builders and user groups (hikers, trail runners, equestrians, motorcyclists, adjacent land owners, and mountain bikers). It is a diverse enough collection of individuals that there isn't a lot of fierce territorial ownership over the trails since everybody eventually finds and uses the other groups trails, but there is some.
> 
> ...


I wasn't addressing whether people who build rogue trails are passionate or not, or even if they build good trails. I've actually seen a few illegal trails where the builder(s) did a pretty good job (and a lot that were pretty bad). All that really doesn't matter though in the context of expecting an illegal trail to have any kind of protections that at least in theory, a legal trail should have. It's like complaining that someone stole the money that you got from holding up a liquor store or stole your stash of weed (outside CO and WA of course). You don't really have any recourse in the system. I guess you can play the I'll kick your a$$, blah blah game but in the end the odds are better that your trail will get shut down than it will be there for any extended period of time.


----------



## CANADIANBACON (Sep 25, 2005)

zrm said:


> I wasn't addressing whether people who build rogue trails are passionate or not, or even if they build good trails. I've actually seen a few illegal trails where the builder(s) did a pretty good job (and a lot that were pretty bad). All that really doesn't matter though in the context of expecting an illegal trail to have any kind of protections that at least in theory, a legal trail should have. It's like complaining that someone stole the money that you got from holding up a liquor store or stole your stash of weed (outside CO and WA of course). You don't really have any recourse in the system. I guess you can play the I'll kick your a$$, blah blah game but in the end the odds are better that your trail will get shut down than it will be there for any extended period of time.


There appears to be competing ethical/moral questions surrounding this topic.

On one hand it seems as though we believe in respecting a trail builders art/craft/intentions/work by not altering it to suit our preferences... because we didn't built it... they did. and yet...

If the builder(s) of said trail built it illegaly or without the L.M.'s permission... then we throw the first rule out the window?

Curiously enough, in my experience 'legally' created or adopted trails are often changed without consulting the original designer/builder... often by the advocacy group or L.M.... even when that party is considered the 'expert' and easily accessible/available.

It is my understanding that the vast majority of trails that exist in N.A. are 'legacy trails'; often built or created without permission and or outside of the pervue of the L.M. Yet, many of these trails have been 'adopted' or brought into a 'system' and afforded the kind of protections that it has been suggested here are afforded to 'legally' created trails.

Where I live now ALL of the BEST most sustainable, most enduring, and publicly valued trails were built 'illegally' or ridden into existence by MTB'rs. That is not to say I condone illegal trail building or that MTB'rs are the only illegal trail builders. More than a few lcoal trails have been illegally built by hikers... One even has an official sign that bares the name of the builder as does a local bench!

Still wondering what we MTB'rs have to do to achieve that status? :skep:

My question has two parts and is a little different than those already discussed:

If a L.M. finds significant enough value in an 'illegally' built or created trail to adopt it, without anything more than a minor alteration...

a) Does this decison serve to demonstrate the builders vision, skills, and abilites, and constitute a resume? and,

b) Should the original builder(s) be consulted and or included in the long-term maintenance/management of said trail due to the obvious commitment and talent they have shown, so that there is consistency in the character, and so that the intended expereince is preserved?

Thanks for your thougts,
CB


----------



## Mark E (Feb 7, 2006)

CB, the only response I can think of for your questions is, "It depends." 

Working at IMBA, I've seen a huge range of relevant scenarios. In some cases, the illegal building has been done in near complicity with the land manager--it's not unheard of for a land manager to turn a blind eye to the unauthorized builders, sometimes even holding informal meetings or offering guidance about elements that would or would not be allowed. In this situation it's not unusual for the trails to eventually gain official status, and the land manager may leave them in their original state when they are adopted into the system. 

In other cases, unauthorized builders operate in direct defiance of a land manager who is actively trying to shut down their activities. That's a very different scenario and one that very seldom results in an enduring trail system. If the trails survive at all they will likely be reworked into something very different from the form they originally were given. 

The best-case scenario is an authorized build that begins from the ground up in partnership with a willing land manager, one who intends to create a great mountain bike trails system with significant input from riders. This is an increasingly common scenario -- LMs who actually understand what riders want, including a diversity of trails with significant emphasis on expert-level riding. In this case, there's a real opportunity to score big project dollars and create a trail system that will never be erased or altered in a hugely negative way because the intent from the get-go was to create a trail system for mountain biking, with mountain bikers having a meaningful say in how that gets executed.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

^ Well said Mark E, certainly more descriptive of my trail world. 

As far as modifying a builder's trail... in the larger "works of public art" world, which I think some purpose built trails or even systems can be considered, it is illegal to not consult the original artist before anything other than low level maintenance is considered, with the purpose being not to change the original impact of the work. In the real trail world I think those decisions can also be made by others who are mindful of this and are familiar with and understand the trail and it's place in the larger system or context, which itself may change over time. 

I certainly invite one or more of you more radical and creative builders to move out here, and join me/us.... maybe leave some of your vibe etched into a mountain.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

Aside from the we built it, don't change it to suit yourself/Strava etc and all the issues of trying to make trail that satisfies everyone from the start, (something very rare with illegal trail as it was never made for everyone and getting it done fast without being caught is often part of the MO) there are a few things that don't often get said. 

Firstly the reason why historic trails get made is need. In reality we all want more trail, new alternatives, better trail, more challenging trail, less challenging trail, better loops, access to and from...etc. It is an appetite not easily sated. Almost all trail will be more attractive than no trail. While official trailcare groups can always identify sections of trail built so poorly they should not have been built, we also identify trail that satisfies riders and rider purposes and is built appropriately. It's not really an elephant in the room, but illegal trail is usually made easier than alternatives because more riders want that than you would assume from MTB forums and because the alternative illegal trail has degraded and become unpleasant to ride. Excepting some dedicated DH lines, it is part of the mentality of illegal XC trail to build, ride and move on rather than maintain, creating a cycle of rough and basic new trail that evolves into easier trail favoured by more riders and then degrades......

Given that a lot of us built illegally (and still would if we were not able to do it legitimately), there is a double-edged sword to how we feel and what we say. We actually understand the need, the process and can identify the benefits of illegal trail. Would it have been built if the older trails were maintained by the builders? Maybe not. Does it or some of it deserve a place in the local system? Probably yes. Could it have been built officially if the builders had been on the official team, helped complete other projects faster and advocated for it? Probably yes. Has building it caused issues with the land manager that will impact the relationship with the authorised trailcare group/s? No doubt. Worst of all, does it then put the authorised volunteers in a compromised position with the illegal builders and everyone who enjoys riding the trail - an us against them situation made worse when the LM asks the official team to destroy and close such trail? Certainly does in our experience.

When Canadian Bacon asks whether adopted, rogue trail should not be altered without consulting the builder, there may be an "it depends" clause. Any building crew worth a salt would not take a heavy hand to a dedicated DH or freeride trail without searching out the builders and trail crew unless something was patently dangerous or they have been asked to close it down. However, if it is obvious the builders have walked and never bothered to attempt maintenance, that's different. It makes no sense to leave degrading trail to the public unless the LM wants braids, cheater lines, haphazard bypasses, completely new trails branching off it etc. I don't see there is any argument here at all. What's best for the land given the legacy of the rogue trail is what counts. As I said, good trail is what we want, so having to modify fly-by-night construction, or provide upkeep to the trail in general (even highways and rail lines don't last forever) is a no-brainer and consultation with the historic builder was forfeit when they walked away.

The sad thing about rogue trail in areas where a legal trail system is being supported by the LM is that they are very unlikely to be mapped or built to the highest standard. The best woodsman and mapper will not be able to ensure great trail if building is done for speed, stealth, or some obscure notion of high level tech only the builder can ride. Conversely, the best builder cannot guarantee sustainable and great trail if trail placement is poor. Both of these things are very common - the builder does not want to be seen or caught, so better routes go out the window and building effort is limited and often coloured with the "everyone wants raw challenge" justification, whether true or not (not). Therefore if the LM says boys, if you renovate that trail we will authorise it, the trail crew has to somehow work out how to get the best outcome while maintaining the start, finish and crux locations. The question is, if the trail needs renovation, re-routes, improvements, etc because it was located and built in a sub-standard (not a personal comment about the builder) manner, how is the trail crew to do that with a limited slate? It makes the trail crew look bad in the eyes of those who decry change and less successful/experienced in the eyes of the LM because the limitations they started with will continue to impact over time, something avoidable if the trail was built to best standard (regardless of difficulty and style) in the first place.


----------

