Discussion Page   Home     Help   Index     Login
Amalgamation of Short Old Roads into Trails #3285
Back To Discussion List Written: 2010.06.01 by: Robin Tivy

The question is: when should a bunch of old roads be amalgamated into a single segment? The example I just hit, while reviewing the roads I've been up, is the North Spider Road and North Spider Trail. I suspect things would be simpler if they were simply put together as a single trail "North Spider Trail". The advantage would be that any bulletins would be together.

The first part of the amalgamated trail is just an old overgrown road, 2.7km but it is undriveable. The second section is an intermittent trail. If it was put together, the surface would be route", and the speed is 2 km/hour.

We have already established the principle that if a series of roads will never be driveable again, and if their only use is to get to a particular mountain destination, then they should be treated as a single trail. The definitive example of this is the Knothole Lake Trail. (At one time it was classed as several roads, but I put them all together as a single entity.

A more recent example was the Bagpipe Spur Trail. Initially, I regarded the little spur at the end as a separate segment, but then decided that since the only useful destination is Bagpipe, I may as well put the two spurs together, and call it "Bagpipe Spur Trail".

Now I'm tempted to combine the North spider trail.

This is a discussion that will delight the editors who are concerned with too much segmentation, since what we are talking about in this case is the opposite. So I expect an overwhelming support.


#1442 - 2010.06.04 Robin Tivy - Example Case - Snowspider Cabin Trail
Here is an interesting case study: Last night I collapsed the "North Spider Trail (Snowspider cabin trail) into one piece. Snowspider cabin trail. It was initially two tiny pieces. The first 2.5 km of the "trail" is on an old road, but is undriveable because the bridge is pulled. The second part from 2.5 km to 3.8 km is an actual path or flagged route.

I put them both together under the principle that neither part is driveable, so its simpler to just have one set of bulletins, etc.

Now here's the interesting part: I was tempted to also combine the section of the old Van Horlick road beyond the bridge into the trail, because I thought it was also undriveable. (We certainly hiked it, not drove), because the bridge at Morris creek is pretty shaky. But I didn't combine it. The reason was because Van Horlick road is a major valley bottom road, so I didn't want to mess with that. Whereas the unnamed spur that I rolled into the trail up North Spider Creek has never been known as a road, and is not a valley bottom road. And I think my decision was a good one, because I now notice that Johannes Muellegger actually managed to get across the bridge in 2008 with a loaded 4runner and 5 people. So it is still in fact a road.

So I think the principle is: the only roads that will be converted to trails are ones that are permanently disabled, and clearly undriveable.

I also considered what to do about the Van Horlick road beyond the point where the "North Spider" spur goes down, since it is completely overgrown. But in this case, I left it as part of the road, because less pieces is better. This addresses Paul Kubiks concern about breaking up roads into too many pieces. Regardless of the fact the end of the road is completely overgrown, it still stays on the map as a road, because we don't want too many small pieces.

#1441 - 2010.06.04 Ramsay Dyer - It Makes Sense
If a road is undrivable and gives access to a single trail, then it makes sense just to roll it into the trail. If the trail leaves from the end of the road, then I can't see any reason not to do this. If the road continues on and could possibly be used for some other purpose, then it might be worth leaving it separate.

Something like the Mamquam S-Line is undrivable, but because it gives access to more than one trail, it probably should be left as it is.

#1439 - 2010.06.03 Robin Tivy - Only completely undriveable ones would be made into trails
I would certainly agree with Dan about the "furthest parking spot" rule, and would never class something a trail if you could drive any sort of highway vehicle further. The cases I'm talking about are definitely undriveable, usually heavily overgrown, or resloped. Only completely undriveable ones would be made into trails. It certainly makes for less road bulletin. Last parking spot = 1 trail. Another case from last weekend that I just thought of is the "Vedder Ridge Trail", which I had already set up as a single trail right from the parking spot, even though the first section is an old road that you still could drive an ATV up.

#1438 - 2010.06.03 Dean Richards - Parking...
I think a key factor in considering whether and old road is functionally part of a trail is whether 1) The road is navigable to vehicles (not including ATV's) and 2) Whether there's room to park further up the old road. If both of these are fulfilled, then maybe the road ought to be extended to the furthest parking area. Otherwise, call it a trail. This way, it encourages considerate use of trails. If people think it's a road, they're more likely to to to drive up it, wreck the surface, and block the path.

So unless the section in question is a different road then the one you came in on, I think this is a fairly simple line to draw.