Fair point. It’s not what I meant when I wrote that but I can see how it could read that way.
The appraoch you describe is not the intention from meetings that I’ve intended, IMO. There are spots where user conflict might mean changes / compromises but I’d hope that in doing so the changes amount to more than what is being “sacrificed”. Plus we’re not involved in things at all those locations.
TBH, what people do now and enjoy is unlikely to change. What is hopped by adding stuff is more trail, that itself will be formally recognised, so it’s more likely to persist.
In all our proposals though we advocate sharing and consequently that all users do so responsibly with due consideration to each other. Personally I reckon it’s easier to get people on side with this sort of thinking. It’s my stock answer to the (non riding) people who complain about bikes being where they “shouldn’t be” and “terrorising” others.
In a parrallel universe I’d be looking to create dedicated MTB trails but the reality is people walk on trails envisioned for bikes and bikes ride on paths designated for walkers. In our small world I think we have to (and will probably improve our lot more quickly) by advocating responsible sharing.
Soap Box!!
😎