Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 176
  1. #101
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    A contrarian opinion...

    I recall when they redid the section from Oak Ridge/Miwok to the beginning of Bay View near Knight in 2008. It was awful. 2,3 years later; it's pretty sweet and getting sweeter. Some sections of Bayview were getting pretty narrow, crumbling away into the ravine below. Just saying....


    Assuming the usual maintenance practices (the tractor won't be back for at least 10 years) then in 2 or 3 years the trial will be looking like a narrow single track again. May even have some rocky/rooty skilz sections...

    In 10 years time some sections will be so rough (you finish the sentence)

    This is all because the current State trail standards don't embrace Grade Reversals and Rolling-Grade Dips (RGDs) that are sooo important when wheeled vehicles (bikes) use unpaved trails. The current policy of relying on out-slope and occasional drain-dips is destined to fail. (because typically they don't receive the intensive semi-annual maintenance required for this style of trail)

    Write your State Senator...
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Defund them more - no money means no maintenance.

  3. #103
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Wait!...

    ...there's more!!!


    This came from some marketing focus firm and since where the focus was surveyed wasn't stated the graph really isn't very valid but shows some interesting trends nonetheless. (I believe the question was "what do you like to do outdoors")

    Notice the relative size of Mtn Biking (or Equestrian for that matter) to Hiking (or Hiking plus Backpacking)

    That's how we're seen by our elected officials; just a small piece of the pie. Why we must present our advocacy loud and clear (and politely).

    It just doesn't matter that we may be the majority of users at a given Park (or other...)

    It makes matters worse statistically in that almost all bikers are also hikers but most hikers are not also bikers. We inadvertently add power to the "other" user group.

    More threadjack still to come...
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  4. #104
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    What kind of hiker likes these mini fireroads anyway? I like my hikes hard and frankly I prefer stuff so hard to be mostly unrideable. Doesn't anyone like adventure anymore. Maybe this was done for the pony crew?

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Regarding that survey. Lot's of fat lazy people claim they "hike" and never do. I think the numbers are inflated. Most American's have just one hobby: TV.

  6. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    55

    Backside

    Backside is owned mostly by City of San Rafael and Private Property.

  7. #107
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    [QUOTE=pliebenberg;10105851
    Notice the relative size of Mtn Biking (or Equestrian for that matter) to Hiking (or Hiking plus Backpacking)

    That's how we're seen by our elected officials; just a small piece of the pie. Why we must present our advocacy loud and clear (and politely).

    It just doesn't matter that we may be the majority of users at a given Park (or other...)

    [/QUOTE]

    We simply need to make the point, very stingily, that this understanding is not applicable to China Camp.Not even....
    I don't rattle.

  8. #108
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Just rode Bayview today with three other riders and did the worked area.Yes it is raw. I think the problem that has been set up is that this section will be really fast. Once bedded in it will be like lower Bayview (Owl) and Oakridge which just begs to be pegged. I can live with that. We just have to wait a season or two.

    FWIW as far as the old section of rocky "tech" which some people seem to like: there is some sense that succeeding on it, up or down, merited a judo.Yeah, I get that. Yet, as someone who has riden just about anything anyone else has, and on a HT, I think it was just crappy and it was only 50 yards long. Doesn't that seem a little desperate and pathetic?.

    The real problem is that we don't have many places to ride. Again, access is the real issue. Let's go out and get more. Improve where we can. The rest is details. Quit sniveling.

    Go do trailwork this weekend:

    Chain Camp
    Tamarancho Flo
    JMP
    I don't rattle.

  9. #109
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,702
    Quote Originally Posted by ehigh View Post
    Almost went to China camp a week ago and I didn't based on a rumor about all this.

    Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2
    I actually took the Singlespeed with BikerScoutSparky, with some reluctance on my part after reading and seeing pics of how it was defiled.

    I'm glad I went. There are still challenging bits at China Camp (at least on the singlespeed). We hammered it out and still had a good time. I got three Strava PRs that day, and managed to clean the big paved climb (including a PR on the climb), even though it was my first time on the Singlespeed since about September.

    Looking back, yeah... I'll miss that rooty section, but I can see why they did it. That section was basically washing out pretty badly. It was not sustainable. They re-routed it up the hill a bit and blocked off the old trail.

    Gonna miss doing this:

    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iLWGIGovLkY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    Last edited by pimpbot; 01-25-2013 at 03:07 PM.

  10. #110
    (slight return)
    Reputation: slide mon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    , I think it was just crappy and it was only 50 yards long. Doesn't that seem a little desperate and pathetic?.
    50 yards here, 50 yards there... Remember when the rock at Tamarancho was a challenge? Remember when Oakridge had some fun roots that got plowed under? Remember when the rock garden on Wagon wheel was funner? Remember Diaz ridge? Remember Meditation trail (now 680)? All fun trails that have been dumbed down to auto pilot mode, and every time it happens people with your attitude say, "it's just one little section..."

    I live pretty close to this section and start a lot of rides going up it. When I was a noob I use to blast down it on a hardtail in toeclips like an idiot but survived. I watched my wife crash on it and slide head first 20 feet down the bank screaming the entire way, then get to the bottom and say "actually that wasn't that bad." Now that I ride out there with my 7 year old we always talk about "mom's big crash" that happened there.

    That section would vary from season to season. Sometimes it would be downright easy. Other times it might get a little eroded, dusty or wet and become more of a challenge. There was a line on the left up over some rocks that was rarely ridden and easier cranking on a singlespeed, and the more popular line on the right. On the right the middle ring was the way to go, power over finesse. But sometimes you just don't feel like shifting up and do it in granny and then it was more challenging. Get over the first root, then pop the front over the second root just as the back wheel is hitting the first root, off balance, then hold it together until you get around the corner. There used to be a couple rocks at the corner but those were dug up a couple years ago, remember that? I'll admit to dabbing on it more than once, and I've watched a lot of good visiting riders get caught off guard there as well.

    So no, it doesn't sound pathetic to me. Your comment on the other hand does.

  11. #111
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    It's not pathetic that we don't have many places to ride?
    I don't rattle.

  12. #112
    More Torque
    Reputation: Diesel~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    I wonder if bay area land mangers are trying to make trails "ADA compliant" or something? I never seen anyone run mini-dozers down trails in other areas such as as the central coast. The trails down there are super rocky and they like them that way!
    Interesting you mention this. I was in a private meeting with some parks (not CSP, however) planners, along with Pliebenberg a few weeks ago, discussing some new trail construction proposed for a local park. One of the parks planners mentioned that they had been directed by their superiors to make ADA a consideration for all future multi-use trails. This does not necessarily mean paved and flat, but it would mean concessions to width, grade, passing areas (pullouts), and length of continuous ascent allowed before leveling off (provide a chance to rest).

    -D

  13. #113
    More Torque
    Reputation: Diesel~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,896
    Quote Originally Posted by pliebenberg View Post


    Assuming the usual maintenance practices (the tractor won't be back for at least 10 years) then in 2 or 3 years the trial will be looking like a narrow single track again. May even have some rocky/rooty skilz sections...

    In 10 years time some sections will be so rough (you finish the sentence)

    This is all because the current State trail standards don't embrace Grade Reversals and Rolling-Grade Dips (RGDs) that are sooo important when wheeled vehicles (bikes) use unpaved trails. The current policy of relying on out-slope and occasional drain-dips is destined to fail. (because typically they don't receive the intensive semi-annual maintenance required for this style of trail)

    Write your State Senator...
    I hear what you are saying though I'd argue that a trail that starts out at 4-8' and grows in does not ride the same as a trail that is built and maintained to a narrower width to begin with.

    I'd also argue that grade reversals are critical even for trails that don't see wheeled travel. If you want to see a local example, check out the Webb Canyon trail at AQ; it was built when the county was in the early days of their Sweco ownership, and they relied only on outslope when they re-routed the last 1/8 of a mile before the New Almaden trail. It gets moderate foot traffic (no horses or bikes allowed), and it has seen significant cupping, to the point where the water can no longer escape the trail in that section.

    -D

  14. #114
    formerly uncle mama
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by GoGoGordo View Post
    Damn.
    Who owns the dominican side?
    Can they do this over there?
    Damn is all i can say.
    Hey Gordo,

    If you bring up the Dominican side again, we might have to do something about it I just rode there today; trails are in good shape.

    As for the trail sanitation in China Camp...whatever, I rode it today; it was fine. It is done; the trail will take a new shape with time. If your really looking for technical trails, your at the wrong spot

  15. #115
    formerly uncle mama
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by SS Hack View Post
    Regarding that survey. Lot's of fat lazy people claim they "hike" and never do. I think the numbers are inflated. Most American's have just one hobby: TV.
    TV, you're funny.

  16. #116
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    And yet you'll note that the section of the trail at China Camp which was "sanitized" was a degraded Sweco trail which saw no maintenance for many years. "Properly" made or not there are a lot of riders who very much enjoyed it. People rave about Annadel (which I love) but the really cool sections are a small part of the overall ride and were never perfectly crafted.

    I keep getting back to the idea that access to a volume of trails is more critical to us than beautifully crafted trails. Beautifully crafted trails are the exception and represent a small percentage of our trails.Cool; I get it, and admire the skill. Yet it is akin to oozing over welds on a frame when what you needed is a solid bike that works well.

    A good portion of our problem is that the kind of riding people jones for are really destination type rides, rare in our area. A really special thing is being done in Tamarancho right now and is getting huge support form a variety of local mountain bikers. But is is a very limited style of riding for a very short distance. While we may enjoy this the expectation that absent such principles mtb is not fun is odd.

    I think we need to pick our battles. Access first and quality enhancements second. Along the way, just has we have done for the last 26 years of advocacy, we educate. That said, we are 15-20 years away from a decent representation of what people seem to want. Unless folks get on board with support for marginal gains think twice that if ever.
    I don't rattle.

  17. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    188
    Berkeley Mike is making some really good sense in his last post. Bravo! I'll be there tomorrow to volunteer and get a feel for all of this in person. We'll be brushing and doing drainage which shouldn't p___ off anyone here. Anyone else coming out?

  18. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by IrieRider View Post
    I think the short answer to this is no, or at least I really hope not....

    I believe that land is owned by the city of San Rafael and Marin Parks.
    San Rafael PD enforces the backside, and judging from the recent crime hitting the city I think bike enforcement/trail sanitation, or any upkeep at all would be their absolute last priority.

  19. #119
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,702

    Yeah....

    Quote Originally Posted by normarin View Post
    San Rafael PD enforces the backside, and judging from the recent crime hitting the city I think bike enforcement/trail sanitation, or any upkeep at all would be their absolute last priority.
    Just don't create problems (buzzing hikers, getting into fights, being snarky), and I think everybody will be just fine.

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    FWIW as far as the old section of rocky "tech" which some people seem to like: there is some sense that succeeding on it, up or down, merited a judo.Yeah, I get that. Yet, as someone who has riden just about anything anyone else has, and on a HT, I think it was just crappy and it was only 50 yards long. Doesn't that seem a little desperate and pathetic?.

    The real problem is that we don't have many places to ride. Again, access is the real issue. Let's go out and get more. Improve where we can. The rest is details. Quit sniveling.

    Go do trailwork this weekend:

    Chain Camp
    Tamarancho Flo
    JMP
    When I started this thread it was when a lot of discussion was going on regarding the new fees at China Camp. Being asked to pay for this kind of work at the park doesn't seem right. Let alone paying at all. Yes it was a small section which I thought was fun. The Bobcat is still there and it keeps going farther. That was the point. Is this the start of a park project to widen and smooth out any rough sections? What is the plan? No one at FOCC is responding and we (the mountain bike community) are being asked (or told) to fund it.
    I agree increasing access is important but I hate to have one of the few legal places to ride singletrack in Marin be turned into another fire road experience. I love the Mt. Tam fireroads every once in awhile but at least China Camp is somewhat singletrack. Slide Mon is right, losing small sections decreases the overall experience.

  21. #121
    YOUREGO ISNOT YOURAMIGO
    Reputation: GoGoGordo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    I cannot wait to retire and move to Bend.
    Just the fact that the FOCC'ers won't respond to ANYONE IS INSANE and speaks volumes to how we, MTB'ers, are looked at.
    TOTAL BS!
    Have fun with your workday and try and recruit some of the people there to come out to tamorancho and help build a real trail.
    Bunch a crooks sold the park and now a bunch a selfish FOCCKERS are trying to keep it to themselves and ruin it.
    Un b leave able.
    Sorry all, but this peesis me off to no end.
    Iv'e Waited for over 37 years for some good trail access and now im told i'll have to wait 15-20 more before we can get some.
    Seriously?
    We, the collective MTB community, should see if we can bring a class action suit against the FOCC'ers, The State of cali, and anyone else who trys to deny us access.
    We've waited long enough!!!
    For fock sake they've got a skate park thats more dangerous than anything we could build.
    Whole Foods 20% beer discount rant over.
    Good night!



    China Camp Trail Sanitation-imageuploadedbytapatalk1359273392.909115.jpg
    Banned for showing Boobies.

  22. #122
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,123
    Quote Originally Posted by GoGoGordo View Post
    I cannot wait to retire and move to Bend.
    Just the fact that the FOCC'ers won't respond to ANYONE IS INSANE and speaks volumes to how we, MTB'ers, are looked at.
    TOTAL BS!
    Have fun with your workday and try and recruit some of the people there to come out to tamorancho and help build a real trail.
    Bunch a crooks sold the park and now a bunch a selfish FOCCKERS are trying to keep it to themselves and ruin it.
    Un b leave able.
    Sorry all, but this peesis me off to no end.
    Iv'e Waited for over 37 years for some good trail access and now im told i'll have to wait 15-20 more before we can get some.
    Seriously?
    We, the collective MTB community, should see if we can bring a class action suit against the FOCC'ers, The State of cali, and anyone else who trys to deny us access.
    We've waited long enough!!!
    For fock sake they've got a skate park thats more dangerous than anything we could build.
    Whole Foods 20% beer discount rant over.
    Good night!



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1359273392.909115.jpg 
Views:	1094 
Size:	124.2 KB 
ID:	756207
    GoGoGordo!

  23. #123
    formerly uncle mama
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by GoGoGordo View Post
    I cannot wait to retire and move to Bend.
    Just the fact that the FOCC'ers won't respond to ANYONE IS INSANE and speaks volumes to how we, MTB'ers, are looked at.
    TOTAL BS!
    Have fun with your workday and try and recruit some of the people there to come out to tamorancho and help build a real trail.
    Bunch a crooks sold the park and now a bunch a selfish FOCCKERS are trying to keep it to themselves and ruin it.
    Un b leave able.
    Sorry all, but this peesis me off to no end.
    Iv'e Waited for over 37 years for some good trail access and now im told i'll have to wait 15-20 more before we can get some.
    Seriously?
    We, the collective MTB community, should see if we can bring a class action suit against the FOCC'ers, The State of cali, and anyone else who trys to deny us access.
    We've waited long enough!!!
    For fock sake they've got a skate park thats more dangerous than anything we could build.
    Whole Foods 20% beer discount rant over.
    Good night!



    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1359273392.909115.jpg 
Views:	1094 
Size:	124.2 KB 
ID:	756207
    That takes balls to post that!

  24. #124
    sbd
    sbd is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    292
    Your problem is largely a SFB/Marin issue. No need to go as far as Bend to watch the drama fade. Spend a few weekends in Ft. Bragg.

    I helped the BTC build China Camp. Only to have idiots that never helped dictate how I should ride them. Over it.

  25. #125
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Best rant...

    Quote Originally Posted by GoGoGordo View Post
    I cannot wait to retire and move to Bend.
    Just the fact that the FOCC'ers won't respond to ANYONE IS INSANE and speaks volumes to how we, MTB'ers, are looked at.
    TOTAL BS!
    Have fun with your workday and try and recruit some of the people there to come out to tamorancho and help build a real trail.
    Bunch a crooks sold the park and now a bunch a selfish FOCCKERS are trying to keep it to themselves and ruin it.
    Un b leave able.
    Sorry all, but this peesis me off to no end.
    Iv'e Waited for over 37 years for some good trail access and now im told i'll have to wait 15-20 more before we can get some.
    Seriously?
    We, the collective MTB community, should see if we can bring a class action suit against the FOCC'ers, The State of cali, and anyone else who trys to deny us access.
    We've waited long enough!!!
    For fock sake they've got a skate park thats more dangerous than anything we could build.
    Whole Foods 20% beer discount rant over.
    Good night!
    ...in this thread so far

    RE: "Just the fact that the FOCC'ers won't respond to ANYONE IS INSANE and speaks volumes to how we, MTB'ers, are looked at."

    Well, at least they should acknowledge receipt of your message. As to responding to same, just remember that when formalized volunteers agree to work with the State they agree to a certain level of censorship. You may even find that some FOCCers may agree with you but "under orders" can't acknowledge it. And the same is true of State staff.

    Remember this?

    Could be what applies here.

    RE: "Have fun with your workday and try and recruit some of the people there to come out to tamorancho and help build a real trail."

    God Bless Tamarancho!

    RE:"Bunch a crooks sold the park and now a bunch a selfish FOCCKERS are trying to keep it to themselves and ruin it."

    I'm only seeing that FOCC is following State policy and anyway what would you expect given their constituency? A MTB group could have just as easily signed up to save China Camp had a biking group/club had the wherewithal to make it happen. Bitter pill to swallow; as an user group we just don't have our $hit together as compared to other groups. IMBA's the best we can do and wysiwyg...

    RE: "We, the collective MTB community, should see if we can bring a class action suit against the FOCC'ers, The State of cali, and anyone else who trys to deny us access.
    We've waited long enough!!!"


    I wish IMBA would do just that. IMBA? Calling IMBA???

    RE:"For fock sake they've got a skate park thats more dangerous than anything we could build. "

    Have you ever seen a skate park within a CA State Park? I could be wrong but I think not. What happens at CC is because it's a State Park. Besides; safety is often just a handy excuse---exclusion is the real goal. And BTW rescue access is the # one reason I've been given when asking land managers "why did you make the trail so wide?" (not just in State Parks)

    State Trail Standards next...
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  26. #126
    mtbr member
    Reputation: splatworldwide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    221

    Video clip of the section

    I was up at China Camp playing around with my new GoPro about a week before this section of trail was torn out. For posterity, here's a clip of the section:

    <iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/58302491" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe> <p><a href="http://vimeo.com/58302491">China Camp, Bay View Trail</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user1692744">Dave (Splat) Le</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
    Loud hubs save lives. http://about.me/splat/

  27. #127
    Lusus Naturae
    Reputation: NoBalance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,840
    Cool, now I can probably go faster there and get another PR!

    On the bright side, you can now bring mountain biking virgins to china camp and not worry about them endo-ing that section. After all, isnt that what the place is for?

    Step 1, china camp.
    Step 2, tamarancho

    Sorry, I just can't get all upset about this. derp.

  28. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148
    Quote Originally Posted by sbd View Post
    Your problem is largely a SFB/Marin issue. No need to go as far as Bend to watch the drama fade. Spend a few weekends in Ft. Bragg.

    I helped the BTC build China Camp. Only to have idiots that never helped dictate how I should ride them. Over it.
    The more users the more trouble; it's a simple fact. Ft. Bragg is very sparsely populated and I know even less populated areas where anything goes. This is why I don't understand the big love for big parking lots some on this forum have!

  29. #129
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Trail Standards for State Parks

    Sorry guys; this is going to be a long one...

    Hopefully this post will explain the policies that result in the "how and why" State Park trails are constructed and maintained. I'm quoting from the DPR (pre-CSP acronym) Trails Handbook; it was written in the '90s---there is an updated version due out soon. I'd scan and post but since this is copyrighted (and not clearly in the public domain as an internal document) I'll employ the quotation format.

    First we see "1.1 Trail Handbook Objectives, California Department of Parks and Recreation":

    "This handbook was developed as a management and field tool for the operation of the trail systems. It provides guidelines for both the supervisor and lead person responsible for trail construction and maintenance activities.

    It also provides the District's Management Team with the information necessary to budget for and administer trail maintenance and rehabilitation programs. Through the establishment of well-defined trail classifications, guidelines, and priorities, the management of the District's trail program will remain consistent and relatively unaffected by personnel changes .

    This document was developed and designed to meet the needs of the northwest coast of California. It is not intended to be used as a universal guide to managing and operating trail systems . The topography, geology, climate, soils and vegetation of the northwest coast of California were all factored into this handbook, however, portions or all of this handbook may be applied to other trail systems.

    This handbook does not intend to, nor is it capable of supplanting trained, experienced and skilled trail supervisors and workers. It is intended to supplement their knowledge and provide guidelines for them to operate under. It can, however, provide a base knowledge of trail management and construction practices for the inexperienced manager or supervisor."


    Notice that in the last paragraph it's stated "This handbook does not intend to, nor is it capable of supplanting trained, experienced and skilled trail supervisors and workers." IMHO this is the most critical and most ignored sentence in this whole section.

    Then we jump in to "1.2 Maintenance Activity":

    "Trail maintenance is the process of keeping a trail at or near its original constructed or intended standards .

    The overall objectives in maintaining the trail system are threefold:
    1. Visitor Safety
    2. Resource Protection
    3. Public Access


    To elaborate, trail maintenance consists ofthe following activities:
    1. Trail structures such as bridges and footlogs should be kept safe for travel.
    2. The tread surface must be maintained to provide an adequate walking or riding surface, free from obstacles or hazards.
    3. Drainage facilities must be built and maintained to prevent loss from erosion.
    4. The trail must be cleared to allow access.
    5. Brush must be cut to define and protect the established tread ."


    Very important to note the order of the overall objectives; that's also the practiced order of significance. Also in regards to this thread; note maintenance activities 2 and 4, especially "free from obstacles or hazards".

    Now we get to the meat of how the width of trails is determined with "1.3 Classification of Trails""

    "To effectively manage a trail system, it is imperative to first designate each trail into a general group or class. The placement of trails into these classes is detennined by utilizing specific criterion with predetermined values (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2 Trail Classification matrix and Instructions). Using these criterion and their respective point values, each trail can be evaluated individually as well as comparatively. Once each trail is evaluated, it is grouped into a class based on the total number of points it receives. For example, 20 points or greater constitutes a Class I trail, 10-19 points constitutes a Class II trail, etc.

    Placing trails into class categories allows a manager to objectively assign standards and work priorities to trails which are consistent with their primary function, environmental sensitivity, relationship to developed facilities and visitor use. Class I trails are assigned the highest trail construction and maintenance standards. The standards for Class II, III and IV trails diminish respectively to their classification with Class IV trails receiving the lowest standards. The selection of trails receiving maintenance and rehabilitation work is also influenced by their classifications. Assuming visitor safety, resource protection and trail investment concerns are equal, those trails with the highest classifications and point totals will receive the highest priority.

    The process of classifying a trail system should be performed at least once every three years. Facility developments, resource concerns and visitor use patterns are subject to change and a trails' point value may rise or decline accordingly. Periodic reevaluation of trail point totals and classifications will insure that assigned standards and work priorities reflect the current systems needs."


    That's clear enough in my opinion.

    Now we'll see "1.4 Trail Standards":

    "Class I
    These trails include accessible, equestrian, interpretive and hiking trails assigned a Class I point
    criteria value. Gravel, turnpikes, puncheon or other drainage structures are required.in areas of trail trenching, trampling, multiple trails or saturated trail beds for resource protection and visitor safety.

    The Class I trail bed will be a minimum of 36 inches wide with a preferred width of 48 inches. Trail beds along a precipice or hazardous area should be wider to provide greater safety for the user (See Chapter 3 "Safety").

    Trail tread will vary from 30 inches to 48 inches depending on the surrounding terrain, trees, vegetation, etc.

    Trail clearing limits for down logs and tree limbing will be 8 feet high and 8 feet wide (4 feet from trail center line). Equestrian trails will be 10 feet high.

    Trail brushing limits for woody brush and herbaceous plant species will be 8 feet high and 6 feet wide (3 feet from trail center line). Equestrian trails will be 10 feet high.

    Trail structures such as bridges, puncheon and steps will have a minimum of 48 inch tread width with a minimum 40 inch tread width between handrails and posts. A wider tread width may be desirable. Equestrian bridges will have a 52 inch minimum tread width between handrails or bullrails.

    Posts and handrails will be required when the vertical drop from the tread exceeds 4 feet Handrail height will be 42 inches from the tread surface and a midrail diagonal will be installed. Equestrian safety railing when installed will have a 32 inch height.

    "All Access" trail tread will be designed to accommodate wheelchairs and be a minimum of 5 feet wide for two wheelchairs to pass one another. Trail tread will be a firm, year-round surface to support a wheelchair."


    We'll be revisiting Class I many times in this discussion; nearly all Multi-Use Trails (MUT for short) in State Parks (SP for short) will be classed as this. MUT's are for combined hiking, biking and equestrian uses; not necessarily for "ADA" (handicapped) access.

    Some MUT's may fall under the "Class II" classification:

    "Class II trails include hiking trails providing access into regions away from developed visitor use facilities that are assigned a Class II point criteria value. Native material is used for trail tread.

    Drainage structures such as turnpikes or puncheon are installed only in wetlands or areas outlined by the District Trail Handbook.

    Trail bed will be a minimum of 24 inches wide. Along a precipice or hazardous area it should be wider to provide greater user safety (See Chapter 3 "Safety").
    .
    Trail tread will vary from 18 to 24 inches wide depending on the surrounding terrain , trees, etc.

    Trail clearing, brushing and structures are the same as for Class I Trails."


    Most MTBers would be happy with the "Class III" classification:

    "Class III trails include lightly used hiking trails assigned a Class III point criteria value. Native material is used for trail tread .

    Drainage structures such as turnpikes or puncheon are best avoided and installed only as a resource mitigating measure.

    The trail bed will be a minimum of 18 inches wide. Along a precipice or hazardous area it should be wider to provide greater user safety (See Chapter 3 "Safety").
    Trail tread will vary from 12 to 18 inches wide depending on the surrounding terrain, trees, etc. Trail clearing limits for down logs and major limbs will be 8 feet high by 6 feet wide (3 feet from the trail center line).

    Trail brushing limits for woody brush and herbaceous plants will be 8 feet high by 4 feet wide (2 feet from the trail center line).

    Trail structures are to be avoided by initial layout or reroute. If absolutely necessary, they will be the same as Class I."


    These are the kinds of trails I like to ride; "Class IV":

    "These are special use and access trails assigned a Class IV point criteria value. Trail tread and bed work is minimal to provide a safe footing.
    Trails should be designed to avoid the need for all structures and drainage controls.

    Trail clearing limits for down logs and brush will be minimal for the passage of the trail user consistent with brushing standards."


    So here's how it works; there's a "Trails Classification Matrix" that assigns points to a trail based on usage and other factors. The resulting point totals translate to:

    Class I = 20+ points

    Class II = 10 to 19 points

    Class III = 5 to 9 points

    Class IV = 0 to 4 points

    The Trails Classification Matrix is a table with the following values for Criteria and Points:

    "1. Handicapped Accessible = 20

    2. Interpretive = 20

    3. Within Visitor Use Facility = 20

    4. Equestrian and Bike = 15

    5. Adjacent to Visitor Use Facility
    0-1/4 mile = 12
    1/4- 1 mile = 8
    1-2 mile = 4
    2 or more miles = 0

    6. Connection of Visitor Use Facilities = 5

    7. Parking Access = 5

    8. Destination Oriented
    0- 1 mile = 3
    1 -3 miles = 2
    3+ miles = 1

    9. Connection with Other Agency Trail = +3 to +5

    10. Special Use or Access = 1

    11. Dead End Trail = 0 or -3

    12. Loop or Connecting Trail = +1- to +3

    13. Fragile Environment
    Protected by lessening use = -1 - to -3
    Protected by upgrading = +1 to +3

    14. Safety Factors
    a. Encourage less use by not Providing Improvements = -1 - to -5
    b. Provide and maintain improvements = +0- +5

    15. Staff Determined Use Patterns
    Little or no use = -1 to -3
    Higher use = +1 to +3"


    Notice that by combining bike and equestrian use it starts out with 15 points; begin the trail at a parking lot and bingo you've got 20 points. Plenty of other combinations quickly get the MUT to 20 plus points. There are a few negative points that could be used to keep a trail from having to be Class I but these situations are seldom acknowledged. A large State Park (like Henry W Coe SP for example) may have trails far enough away from parking, visitor centers, attractions, etc to qualify as Class II MUT''s.

    ...and now you know the rest of the story...

    Plenty to follow but maybe in a new thread; there's matrices specifically for MTB's and OHVs---and plus a whole MTB-specific chapter. If I wait long enough maybe the new edition will be out and this'll all be moot...
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  30. #130
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    GoGoGordo's post was huge fun but the image warranted a spoiler alert and is now burned into my retina. Gordo may you burn in heck.

    However, it would be great if such energy was actually put into a movement which could sustain itself for more than a few months. This is precisely the sort of flash-in-the-pan that Boards and Land Managers have learned to weather. Truth be told it simply falls into the category of curmudgeonly whiners afeard for their lives because of those hell-bent-for-leather mountain bikers. That makes it a zero sum gain. They simply wait for the futile show of frustration and pissing into the wind to die down and go on about their business.

    What is wanted is an organized effort to take some of these issues on. It boils down to issues of fees, the proportion of fees, and the style/maintenance of trails.

    Pliebenburg's excellent post clearly illustrates the criteria for trails condition. The only wiggleroom for the kind of trails that many want to see remain the way they are is deferred maintenance. New leadership and new money sources have messed that neglect up; they are adhering to the rules.

    In the short term the only place we can have any effect is in fees. Given that other state parks under alternative forms of funding and administration have laid down precedent for such fees and regulation supports them, getting rid of them will be a no-win situation. In addition there is a fair amount of support from the mtb community for paying fees to support their parks. So this will be a waste of time.

    That said, the place where mtb might have an effect is to equalizes the fees required for access. That means either reducing fees to match the hikers $2 per day or increasing their's.

    The last issue, trail style/maintenance, will hardly respond to the grail of IMBA Trail standards tomorrow, no matter how well thought-out, tested, or championed. That will take some time.

    So what do you guys actually want to do?

    Unfortunately what will probably happen is that most will take a look at what is possible and simply walk away saying "f-it dude; let's go bowling." That will be followed, when advocates get the fees changed, by "advocacy groups suck; they can't get anything done."

    This has been seen soooo many times.

    I mean don't get me wrong pissing and complaining is hillarious but hubris, bravado, and balls...oh god I can't get that image out of my head.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 01-27-2013 at 01:25 PM.
    I don't rattle.

  31. #131
    YOUREGO ISNOT YOURAMIGO
    Reputation: GoGoGordo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    GoGoGordo's post was huge fun but the image warranted a spoiler alert and is now burned into my retina. Gordo may you burn in heck.

    However, it would be great if such energy was actually put into a movement which could sustain itself for more than a few months. This is precisely the sort of flash-in-the-pan that Boards and Land Managers have learned to weather. Truth be told it simply falls into the category of curmudgeonly whiners afeard for their lives because of those hell-bent-for-leather mountain bikers. That makes it a zero sum gain. They simply wait for the futile show of frustration and pissing into the wind to die down and go on about their business.

    What is wanted is an organized effort to take some of these issues on. It boils down to issues of fees, the proportion of fees, and the style/maintenance of trails.

    Pliebenburg's excellent post clearly illustrates the criteria for trails condition. The only wiggleroom for the kind of trails that many want to see remain the way they are is deferred maintenance. New leadership and new money sources have messed that neglect up; they are adhering to the rules.

    In the short term the only place we can have any effect is in fees. Given that other state parks under alternative forms of funding and administration have laid down precedent for such fees and regulation supports them, getting rid of them will be a no-win situation. In addition there is a fair amount of support from the mtb community for paying fees to support their parks. So this will be a waste of time.

    That said, the place where mtb might have an effect is to equalizes the fees required for access. That means either reducing fees to match the hikers $2 per day or increasing their's.

    The last issue, trail style/maintenance, will hardly respond to the grail of IMBA Trail standards tomorrow, no matter how well thought-out, tested, or championed. That will take some time.

    So what do you guys actually want to do?

    Unfortunately what will probably happen is that most will take a look at what is possible and simply walk away saying "f-it dude; let's go bowling." That will be followed, when advocates get the fees changed, by "advocacy groups suck; they can't get anything done."

    This has been seen soooo many times.

    I mean don't get me wrong pissing and complaining is hillarious but hubris, bravado, and balls...oh god I can't get that image out of my head.
    Mike
    Sorry i should have warned against the image.
    Surprised the mods have left it up this long.
    I understand this is state park land and all the associated BS that is involved as far as public safety and liability is concerned.
    I get what it takes to be an advocate it's just that my job - family- work schedule ect, ALL interfere with how much I/ we can all participate in the decision making process.
    If I work nights and weekends, it's hard to make meetings and other important functions where our presence is needed.
    I wanna go to the meetings, I wanna be THE voice, i wanna be the like Michael Moore, but I can't.
    Hell i dont even live in Marin.
    I Just play there.
    Have for over 35 years.
    I even stayed off illegal trails for like 20 years till i finally realized we weren't getting any more access.
    Now, game on.
    It' s much easier to poach every now and then
    and get your ST fix than to go to meetings and fight the city, county, state.
    So whats a poor ol bastard like myself gonna do but ***** an moan and poach cause we gotz no place to ride like other civilized States and countries have that we've all been to?
    I don't know, but I do know that i'll keep helping out at Tamo till that baby's done cause what their doing is awesome and needed and works with my schedule.
    And As soon as the shovel hits the dirt in McLaren park, ill be there helping too.
    I'm also open to any suggestions for what peoples like myself can do if we cant make meetings and such.
    Like you said we need to have informed people at these meetings regularly
    to have our voice heard.
    To push for more SHARING!!
    But the process is slow and plodding.
    Has been for decades.
    If we had other trails as examples of our lobbying efforts then maybe more people would participate in the effort to gain more access.
    I dont know what the answer for Marin is ,but until someone can take that bull by the horns, then its poachin and *****in for me and just about all the other riders around here.
    At least that seems to be our MO.
    Who can do it?
    Who has the time, money, and wherewithal to devote to this endeavor?
    What can a guy with a wacky schedule and time constraints do?
    Im open to all suggestions and dialogue.

    China Camp Trail Sanitation-imageuploadedbytapatalk1359326694.241033.jpg
    Banned for showing Boobies.

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: timetraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    304
    [QUOTE=pliebenberg;10111456]Sorry guys; this is going to be a long one...

    Hopefully this post will explain the policies that result in the "how and why" State Park trails are constructed and maintained. QUOTE]

    Wow, informative and somewhat depressing. I guess I should hope for deferred maintenence and some more sensible guidelines in the new edition.

  33. #133
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    GGG, please do not mistake a critique for solution for a negative criticism of you. In fact I am sure that there are many people who are in the same boat. I am not even pointing a finger at people who don't do much to help regardless of the reason. I am, however, trying to describe a quality of participation necessary for change. I hope you see the difference.

    As a leader of volunteers I try not to presume upon someone's time, anymore than I might presume upon someone's pocketbook. That is an unwelcome intrusion, even an insult. From that position each hour, each dollar, is seen as the gift it really is.

    That advocacy is frustrating and plodding is a fact. This is a function of two things:

    1) Long-range and dated Master plans, designed for decades of application in large institutions, which were formed before mtb even existed.

    2) Entrenched beliefs, held by the community in general, about how parks and land should be used.

    The former, the letter of the law, omits us and the latter, expresses the extant common sense of the time. Even if we got close to something, by dint of finding someone sympathetic in a circumstance where goodwill might get us over the hump, the prevailing public attitude, whether actually voiced or assumed as the lay of the land, would slam the door.

    For years what we tried to do was play nice as much as possible on the trails, talk to managers reasonably making our case with proofs, statistics, demonstrations......The result was precious little. If it wasn't for the Fairfax Boy Scout's tax troubles we would not have some of the nice trails we now have.

    Along the way the futility and plodittidy used up many of us. Those who worked so hard for so little often ran screaming into the night, never to be heard from again except by the occasional rumored sighting on Paranickle. Those who dipped their toes into the pool on occasion suffering, in hindsight of course, from unrealistic expectations, abandoned an unpromising quest against unfair, yet intractable, prescriptions against our usage of parks we felt we had a right to access. Many rode way grumbling the pointlessness, or the ineffectiveness of advocacy groups for doing anything meaningful.

    Tick-tock, tick-tock, and 26 years later, what has changed?

    Well, first off, advocacy groups and dedicated advocates never stopped building relationships. The community has matured, come to a better understanding about itself and the sport and, whether they like it or not, a recognition of their achilles heel; the failure to appreciate their limitations. We teach the sport to our friends, our children, and anyone interested. We own homes, have business, hold important places in the community. We volunteer, we serve, we help.

    We are known. We haven't gone away. We have been responsible for the survival and resurgence of mtb. We have grown our numbers and become more widely recognized and accepted. At the same time old land management plans have aged, even expired in some cases. And their review and rewriting, much do to tireless efforts of our original advocates, embrace us and the process of inclusion unlike those in the past. In 26 years many of those people against us, without meaning to be cruel, have simply passed away, and the general community, populated by us, is more supportive. Stables and the number of horses locally have markedly reduced.

    What now? Free time hasn't changed and we'd still rather ride but advocacy has new possibilities and some barely recognized responsibilities. It is not enough to know the machinations of park politics but advocacy groups need to understand where their true power lies, how to access it, and not squander it. We need to understand how to bring advocacy opportunities within reach of mountain bikers and tap into those huge numbers of ours. We need to format our efforts in a fashion which makes participation, even for those with limited resources.
    Last edited by Berkeley Mike; 01-27-2013 at 09:00 PM.
    I don't rattle.

  34. #134
    YOUREGO ISNOT YOURAMIGO
    Reputation: GoGoGordo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    Good points Mike .
    All well taken.
    I'll reply later today.
    Out riding right now...
    Banned for showing Boobies.

  35. #135
    Poacher
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,209
    There is a section above Bayview that I was "hiking" down on friday, and I had to remove about 20 tree trunks/logs so hikers would not trip. Someone freshly cut 6 inch trees to block trail. Counterintuitive except that I have seen this for many years in Marin. That is actually a section that is somewhat abusive to the park, and would be a great starting point for relations between bikes and walkers. Maybe a well thought out re route? Anyway, I am happy to see the work you guys do that benefits us all. I did help that first rainy day at Tamarancho, but should help more. Thanks.

  36. #136
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    188
    Sunday was a volunteer trail work day with a China Camp maintenance worker, MCBC, and Access4Bikes. We worked on Echo Trail which connects Bayview to Bayhills Drive above. Our job was to brush the trail a foot back from trail cut/edge and help with water drainage. We had a very good crew of about 10, mostly mountain bikers. None of the work seemed like over sanitation to me but were normal yearly chores that most trails require. The water drainage was achieved via rolling grade dips, a term that even the maintenance worker knew well.

    It was interesting that there was no one there claiming to be part of FOCC. Some of the workers were pass holders and were there because of emails sent by FOCC. There seemed to be a pretty good vibe all in all and no hints of any controversy regarding sanitation of trails or the pass system.

    Now get this: There was a neighbor there on our crew who is very involved in volunteerism at China Camp as he owns a large property adjacent to the park. He stated that he would support a "Flow Trail" at China Camp. He even brought it up that the park should provide such opportunities for downhill and stunt riding. I was floored.

    We all know the reality of permitting such projects on public land let alone State Parks. It would be a long shot and of course there is no budget for it. Interesting talk though, especially with the chatter on this thread lately.

  37. #137
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    Thank you for coming out to China Camp for the yard work!
    I don't rattle.

  38. #138
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,123
    Quote Originally Posted by vernonator View Post
    Sunday was a volunteer trail work day with a China Camp maintenance worker, MCBC, and Access4Bikes. We worked on Echo Trail which connects Bayview to Bayhills Drive above. Our job was to brush the trail a foot back from trail cut/edge and help with water drainage. We had a very good crew of about 10, mostly mountain bikers. None of the work seemed like over sanitation to me but were normal yearly chores that most trails require. The water drainage was achieved via rolling grade dips, a term that even the maintenance worker knew well.

    It was interesting that there was no one there claiming to be part of FOCC. Some of the workers were pass holders and were there because of emails sent by FOCC. There seemed to be a pretty good vibe all in all and no hints of any controversy regarding sanitation of trails or the pass system.

    Now get this: There was a neighbor there on our crew who is very involved in volunteerism at China Camp as he owns a large property adjacent to the park. He stated that he would support a "Flow Trail" at China Camp. He even brought it up that the park should provide such opportunities for downhill and stunt riding. I was floored.

    We all know the reality of permitting such projects on public land let alone State Parks. It would be a long shot and of course there is no budget for it. Interesting talk though, especially with the chatter on this thread lately.
    Wow that is amazing news! I get home the 31st. I would love to follow up on this.

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KevXR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    694
    The path had to be widened for the upcoming chariot races. *#U&!@ equine riders!


  40. #140
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: pliebenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,908

    Could happen if...

    Quote Originally Posted by vernonator View Post
    Now get this: There was a neighbor there on our crew who is very involved in volunteerism at China Camp as he owns a large property adjacent to the park. He stated that he would support a "Flow Trail" at China Camp. He even brought it up that the park should provide such opportunities for downhill and stunt riding. I was floored.
    ...you've got a friendly District Superintendent; absolutely won't happen if you don't. Things are changing at CSP though; could be for the better for MTBing or it could get worse. Too soon to tell.

    Light some prayer candles???

    Would the Park neighbor be interested having public access trails for flow/ DH/ stunt riding on his property? (He probably wouldn't if he's checked with his insurance carrier!)

    I started another thread here Trails for Mountain Bikes in CA State Parks to further discuss issues.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  41. #141
    Like a boss.
    Reputation: Piranha426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    It is not enough to know the machinations of park politics but advocacy groups need to understand where their true power lies, how to access it, and not squander it.
    I'm beginning to wonder if our "true power" (though that phrase makes me feel kinda... weird) lies in two things: (1) the money we can help bring to the table and (2) the man/woman-power we can bring to projects. Both of these elements are real limiting factors that govern how much land management agencies can achieve.

    I had a meeting today with EBRPD as part of my normal, working, paid life - and the conversation came round to bike parks. One of the EBRPD folks was talking to me about her desire to implement a bike park, and I mentioned our efforts in Marin County w/ Stafford Lake. I told her that one of the reasons the County agreed to the idea of the park was because the local bike community agreed to provide much of the short-term construction labor and long-term maintenance labor. I also told her about the assistance the bike community was providing in terms of helping to find funding (grants, cost-sharing, donations, etc.), and I mentioned the $250K the City of SF had just given the McLaren Park folks. I also mentioned the NorCal league, how we're having the state championship at the short track at Stafford Lake, etc. She was amazed to hear about all this, and really excited. She wasn't aware of the scale of resources that the bike community could bring to the table.

    I honestly believe that most staffers at most land management agencies don't want to screw over MTBs. It's just that they're hamstrung by so many things - lack of funding, staff that have had their jobs FOREVER and are resistant to change, boards of directors that are comprised of cranky old people. What cuts through the BS? Resources. People, yes, but mostly MONEY. You can argue about what's "right" and "just" and "fair" until the cows come home. But what agencies are interested in is resources. Doing the work and riding the trail is great... but maybe preparing the grant application and riding the trail is better? I dunno. Time for bed.

    And please NO MORE BALLS OMG THAT'S GROSS IT LOOKS LIKE A CROTCH TUMOR AND I'M A STRAIGHT WOMAN.
    Quote Originally Posted by jbt56
    Are you a whiny Marin liberal, or a hand-wringing Berkeley liberal?

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hanskellner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    345
    Where FOCC's donations are going. BlackOps trail patrol.



    My Cycling Videos: Vimeo | YouTube | My Website

  43. #143
    YOUREGO ISNOT YOURAMIGO
    Reputation: GoGoGordo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,550

    China Camp Trail Sanitation

    Quote Originally Posted by Piranha426 View Post
    I

    And please NO MORE BALLS OMG THAT'S GROSS IT LOOKS LIKE A CROTCH TUMOR AND I'M A STRAIGHT WOMAN.
    Your right, it was a tumor.
    Damn guy lost that ball as a matter of fact.
    And if you were a un-straight woman would it look any different?
    China Camp Trail Sanitation-imageuploadedbytapatalk1359692975.362518.jpg
    Banned for showing Boobies.

  44. #144
    It's about showing up.
    Reputation: Berkeley Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,732
    an udder failure....
    I don't rattle.

  45. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation: telemike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    407
    I know that spot. The first time I rode there, I stopped above the rocks and the roots to check it out. A guy flew past me and leaned to far forwards as he hit the big roots. Over the bars. He was a bit shaken up and was gonna have some bruises the next day. His brother and I made sure he was OK, but he rode off alright in the end. He must have hurt in the morning though!

    Been there, had that done to me.

  46. #146
    I'm really diggin it!
    Reputation: Davey Simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,123

    China Camp Trail Sanitation

    Quote Originally Posted by hanskellner View Post
    Where FOCC's donations are going. BlackOps trail patrol.



    I think the pilot stopped to pee. Seriously check him out in the background.

  47. #147
    YOUREGO ISNOT YOURAMIGO
    Reputation: GoGoGordo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Berkeley Mike View Post
    an udder failure....
    Thank you.
    Badda bing!
    Although my parents would disagree.
    Banned for showing Boobies.

  48. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    3,744

    China Camp Trail Sanitation

    Rode China Camp today and wouldn't refer to it as trail sanitation. The grading brought the section in line with the difficulty of the rest of the trails. Personally I liked the section as it added a little technical fun. That said, it seemed to screw up a lot of riders. I can't count the number of times I had to wait for people to walk down it. China Camp is a fun hardtail loop, not a place for technical riding.
    Riding slowly since 1977.

  49. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4,148

    China Camp Trail Sanitation

    Quote Originally Posted by CDMC View Post
    Rode China Camp today and wouldn't refer to it as trail sanitation. The grading brought the section in line with the difficulty of the rest of the trails. Personally I liked the section as it added a little technical fun. That said, it seemed to screw up a lot of riders. I can't count the number of times I had to wait for people to walk down it. China Camp is a fun hardtail loop, not a place for technical riding.
    To me a fun hardtail or rigid loop for that matter has a few bumps. As you mentioned, riders could always walk the section.

  50. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    422
    China Camp is a fast/fun SS loop, finally rode the new sanitized sections.
    The upper trail over to backside got cleaned up too.
    It's smooth, you can really strafe the place now....

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •