I hate being all “exclusive” but when people come on here asking about trails round Hebden Bridge, I’m afraid I’m reluctant to respond. Which, I know, is sad.

Hebden is an interesting one, probably due to the sheer density of trails there. I’ve ridden that area on and off for about 12 years with various different groups of people and heard the same trail called 3 different names which suggests to me that each particular clique fondly assumed that they were the only people riding it!

Although to be fair, I’ve had the same in Swinley Forest and out on the North Downs with cheeky trails there so it’s certainly not unique to Hebden. But it was very good at “hiding” trails in plain sight since no-one outside of “your” group would know where you meant.

It’s a bit different now that a lot of it is on Strava – you upload your ride and that segment has a name which is now more generic. Riders in different groups will all now be calling it the same thing which in a way broadcasts it far more obviously.

This isn’t an anti-Strava rant either but I think that the way people find trails has changed a lot – whereas it used to involve hours poring over maps and a night in the pub with local MTBing mates all discussing where to ride, now it just takes an hour on Strava and Google Streetview / Google Earth to pull it all together.

I asked about discussing non-bridleway/green lane riding in the dales, on another thread. There is a bit, fwiw, with more evidence from tyreprints on the ground, some of them mine, than from strava heatmaps (though I’m afraid I’ve been responsible for some of this too.)

I’m personally happy to ride ‘cheeky’, in appropriate fashion (non-cheeky come to that – some bridleways you’d be daft to ride hard on a sunny weekend).

When it comes to broadcasting, I’m not sure. When I got into surfing I completely failed to get the concept of ‘secret spots’. After a few years it makes sense, though that may be because one has taken in the prevailing ‘ethic’ from the, erm, community.

Perhaps that’s what it’s about. Some trails will take a lot of riding, others get trashed, and some I think can actually benefit from a bit of regular traffic. Riding some will wind folk up, others less so or it’ll never be known, whatever. So what makes sense in some places won’t apply to others.

So anyway, dales, (meaning well into the national park, not round Ilkley where I live, heaven forfend! Drive past folks, nothing to see here…) I’d personally prefer to be a bit more out and proud, when it comes to selective non-bridleway riding in access areas, and think it would be good to see a few more people doing it. It’s never going to be the peak or the lakes. Posting up here though, not sure.

That’s a very well known and frequently ridden footpath, not the kind of trail this thread is about.

So your stance is “tell everyone about everything”?

Nope, it’s more take things on a case by case basis and don’t make too many generalisations and pronouncements about what is and isn’t right and what people should and shouldn’t do.

I wouldn’t broadcast anything around Cannock after some disappointing word-of-mouth experiences where good but fragile trails were completely destroyed literally in a matter of days

Much prefer to recreate them. The process is subtle – even though the trail has gone it takes a lot to eradicate the line the ground. I follow it as close as I can and soon someone else has had the same idea. Within a week or so the new line is rideable

After a while others will move timber and debris aside and the trail emerges. Not 100% as it was but pretty close

Then someone Stravas it and the process repeats itself

I live in Scotland where the laws are more sensible, but I’m not sure why people would put cheeky segments on Strava – it’s one thing to have them as part of your route where someone could, theoretically, follow your line there, but I wouldn’t want to advertise the fact. Although maybe I would as the “no bikes on footpaths” thing is a bit silly, and the last time I was told not to ride on a footpath I was in Scotland and it was just poorly informed foreign ramblers.

TBH I’ve seen more trails up here that I’ve really liked trashed by falling trees than I’ve seen trashed by over-use by MTBers. Where they are over-used, often they’re alternative lines running parallel to a boring bit of well surfaced trail which have also, for some reason, been heavily used by walkers as well as MTBers.

Just had my best cheeky trail flattened by land owners, mostly due to over use, so bit of a touchy subject right now.

New stuff, will be shared, strictly word of mouth.
Even thinking of, some kind of camouflaged gates, top n bottom.

There’s a difference between riding footpaths and built trails here isn’t there? Footpaths are on Ordnance Survey mapping for everyone to see, stuff that people have created seems like a different thing again.

I’ve deliberately inserted privacy zones around a mate’s secret singletrack before now to keep it off my Strava feed, which is private anyway, and only open to people I know and approve, but Strava’s full of loopholes anyway, so it probably shows up on heat maps if people bother to look.

And as far as footpaths go, I think it depends on the footpath. If it’s rocky and sustainable, I’m perfectly happy to be open about it, if it’s a more sustainable surface, I’ll keep my trap mostly shut.

Freedom.

Isn’t that what our grandparents and parents generation died defending? (That’s if you believe the poppy wearing professional lying class)

So how about you Englandshire chaps asserting your freedom? If you don’t have open access in your own country, you don’t have freedom.

You’re being treated like rats in a cage. Squeeze the cage a bit tighter and the squeezers can relax because the rats will fight each other instead of turning on the squeezer.

Open access is the answer. You have a beautiful country, get out there and enjoy your freedom.

Bad news samunkim.

Was that the long run from the pond down to the ford?

I just happened to spot it when I was back in the shire a few months ago. Looked like you’d put a lot of work into it.

I live on the edge of the new forest. There is virtually zero worthwhile riding here that is sanctioned.
Much of the rest is bogland.

I ride wherever it’s sensible and whenever it’s dry enough.
I’d tell anyone who wanted to know, though the trails are hard to share (the paths on OS maps are way out of their true locations in some areas) and, frankly, you’d be insane to travel to the NF just for the riding. I also barely know where I am when we’re out, never mind afterwards 😳

… but I absolutely endorse sensible riding of any trail you want.

Anywhere.

I agree with pretty much every word BWD has written here.

The only trouble is … “sensible”. If there was a way to set strava to not share with dickheads, that’d be great.

@ chakaping

Nah.
It’s the older diagonal “main line” which has been deleted.

So how about you Englandshire chaps asserting your freedom? If you don’t have open access in your own country, you don’t have freedom.

Does that mean I can build jumps in your garden?

Freedom is much more than that.

mikewsmith – Member
Does that mean I can build jumps in your garden?
Freedom is much more than that.

Don’t be a muttonhead. You’ve said the same in previous posts and had the concept explained to you a number of times.

Open access is a well defined concept and has been part of the common rights of Scotland and the Scandinavian countries. You only have to visit those countries and their myriad of trails to see it in action.

It probably existed in England before the big landowners used their position to make the laws of exclusion long before universal suffrage. It a right that was stolen from the common man probably around the time of the Enclosures in England. Out of interest, any historians out there who can pinpoint when/if this right was stolen?

It does not include the right to tramp through someone’s gardens, crops etc. Basically it boils down to good manners and respect for other people, so it’s not a very difficult concept. And best of all it really does work.

Freedom is more than that, but open access is an important component of freedom.

^ all agreed, which may be why so many in the UK ride where they like within reason based on respect for crops, wildlife and others, etc. The law may not support that here but in effect if there’s a path of sorts it’s a potential route for some. Common sense and respect is the judge of whether it’s ridden or not. I’m not getting into the debate about how many have that level of judgement or whether that judgement is OK/selfish/counter-productive etc. But as has been said above, don’t rock the boat, broadcasting where you ride may be part of the rocking.

Openmtbkie makes a good pro-broadcasting point about evidence of use that wouldn’t be needed if we had open access. I’d put myself in the ‘ain’t broke (that badly), don’t fix it (yet, but have tools ready for when you can)’ camp until there’s a movement towards open access that looks well-planned and ready to be listened to in the right places.

Depends where in the country you are, the natural stuff around Swinley and Crowthorne is getting far less traffic than it used to. Despite suffering the same fate as most trails there and being named 10+ times on Strava. Seriosuly, New England Hill has about 6 corners, it doesn’t need every inch making a segment!

So it’s not just STRAVA, there is a demand for more technical trails (which won’t be met by open access). Not sure what the solution is, as a digging free-for-all isn’t it either.

Illegal odd a strong word and the wrong mindset, IMO.

Rising a footpath or straight lining a field of sheep – trespass unless you actually do some damage. Illegal, but a civil matter. Becomes criminal if you take a fence down to get in (B&E).

Digging a trail on someones land would be criminal damage. There’s obviously a fair amount leeway on some bits of land (some FC forests being an example), but even in scotland you can’t turn up with a spade and dig a new trail on someones land.

I want people to ride the trails I build, that’s the whole point! Getting positive feedback is great too 😀

Sure it annoys me when corners are cut, I do my best to block the shortcuts.

Openmtbkie makes a good pro-broadcasting point about evidence of use

I don’t think that’s a point in favour of detailing where you ride online. It’s just that the cat’s out of the bag. A lot of riders still can’t imagine that landowners and pressure groups would bother checking Strava, and document their activities accordingly.

Don’t be a muttonhead. You’ve said the same in previous posts and had the concept explained to you a number of times.

Indeed. But I’d refrain from giving him the time of day; he’s one of the more obvious trolls to use this forum.

Digging a trail on someones land would be criminal damage. There’s obviously a fair amount leeway on some bits of land (some FC forests being an example), but even in scotland you can’t turn up with a spade and dig a new trail on someones land.

Interestingly, in my experience “cheeky” built trails seem to be put on Strava more often than “Just removing a few bits of dead wood and riding it” trails. This might be cos they’re better or not. I’d only dig/build new trails after a chat with whoever’s looking after the land, though I have repaired a couple of bits of existing trail without consulting anyone (cutting a gap in fallen trees, replacing missing slats on a bridge).

I don’t think that’s a point in favour of detailing where you ride online.

No, agreed, to be clearer it’s more of a positive side of the cat being out of the bag, ie the use levels shown vs actual issues reported/caused.

I wonder if the restricted access leads to a different mindset.

Eg, if you are limited to a small area, then to make it interesting, it needs to get features added such as jumps, berms, wooden bits etc, especially if it is in woods with no views. So those trails are going to get pummelled especially as there’s heavier traffic.

And with open access, maybe the mindset is more likely to be using the trails to get somewhere, so the rider’s emphasis is more on finding interesting routes point to point.

Maybe someone who has lived in both countries has an opinion on this.

If I see anther rider on one of my cheeky trails, I’m likely to high-five him.

Everybody is on road bikes these days 🙁

As other have said the cat’s out of the bag and there is no way you’ll get it back in there!

Strava – it’s an incredibly powerful tool, but the goodness of the tool depends on who is wielding it and the situation.

When I was on holiday down in Pembrokeshire, it led me to some half decent empty”cheeky trails” in the woods near where I was staying, all you need to do is check segments and/or the heatmap to find them. I actually used the segment explore function when I was out on the bike to lead me to the “good stuff”, which was a first for me. I actually bought an OS Map for the area, but to be honest Strava was by far the more powerful tool.

On the other hand, if you look at the Strava heatmap for a local privately owned country park (with an increasing Ranger presence) where cycling is absolutely definitely not allowed, aside from the Tarmac track through the middle, you’ll see that people ride there presumably more often than not at night. I’ve not seen anyone daft enough to try and ride in there during peak hours.
Combine this with modern lights that are so bright that they can be seen from miles away, you’ll not be surprised to hear people have been “collared” by rangers during the evening when the park is basically empty.
These MTBer/ranger interactions probably aren’t doing us any favours.
If I were a Land Manager who wanted to see where people were riding on my land the first port of call would be Strava.

and heard the same trail called 3 different names

Only 3? 😀

+1 BWD by the way. I have a distinct dislike of the ‘we’re not telling you because you’re not from round here’ attitude. The only proviso I would add is some advice on when a trail should be ridden. For in instance in the case of Hebden, by all means tell people about trails through Hardcastle Crags, but also tell them that riding them on a sunny Sunday morning when squillions of walkers will be out, or after a week of rain, is a stupid and irresponsible thing to do.

I wonder if the restricted access leads to a different mindset.

Eg, if you are limited to a small area, then to make it interesting, it needs to get features added such as jumps, berms, wooden bits etc

I think this is why the UK’s got such a strong DH, trials and dirt jumps scene. Riding is more bounded, so we end up doing it in small pockets of countryside and focusing on the technical challenge. Early XC races often used to have a trials comp too – here’s a video of one of the first ones held in the UK that’s been doing the rounds again.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPAH4ng6_iw[/video]

The downside is accessibility and uptake. Keeping mountain biking underground and emphasising the challenging side of it means that it stays a minority sport that many people never even get to try.

It a right that was stolen from the common man probably around the time of the Enclosures in England. Out of interest, any historians out there who can pinpoint when/if this right was stolen?

Quite true, mostly in the 18th Century. At that time you had to be a landowner to be an MP and you had to be a landowner to vote. All the Lords, were, of course, landowners too.
The Inclosures (Enclosures) were deals made by landowners for landowners.
UK Male suffrage:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm

I’ve done a new blog post on access rights.

Basically I think there’s no need to respect archaic laws as long as we respect the countryside and the people we meet…

MTB access rights: Our mass trespass is already happening

Yep, well articulated. That’s been my position for quite a few years. Ride wherever you want, just be nice to the folk you meet along the way.

The ultra-militant red-socks will never be happy about it, but they are all of a certain age now. Soon they’ll be dead and gone, but we’ll still be riding.

Good blog, that says it well. I’d also like to add that when we meet Mr Angry (he invariably seems to be male) it’s always worth engaging with him in a calm and reasoned way.I do on the rare occasions I’m challenged and something positive always comes out of it, even if it just expands his consciousness a little beyond his often narrow boundaries

Without a doubt its taken a lot of work but its now possible to get from langsett to ladybower without touching or seeing the regular route, thankfully

Really???? Intrigued and now going looking on Strava

chakaping – Member
I’ve done a new blog post on access rights.

Well put. 🙂

Scotland has always had a tradition of open access, the law simply codified it.

Cheers, it will be a tougher nut to crack in England, for sure.

Hoping Wales will take up the baton and – being closer to so much of England – people will be able to see that it’s not a problem.

I might be naïve, but I prefer to think I’m older and wiser and understand a bit more about how the world works now – so I think that if we act as though we already have the law that we want, we’re more likely to get it.

Does that include being able to tell people which footpaths they might be able to ride on the internet? 😉

Sorry, I’m just being silly now. I guess you’ve explained adequately that you don’t think it’s okay. What do you think of the idea that the existing rights of way system is actually fine on the ground given that many people ignore it anyway without any consequences. Does anyone really need reform other than guidebook writers?

Does anyone really need reform other than guidebook writers?

You say that as though guide book writers didn’t matter!
The serious point, though, is that an area is trying to develop a tourism base including promoting cycling, the best trails often cannot be promoted because they are not rights of way for cyclists.
Opening up the countryside to all responsible, non-motorised users will greatly benefit all the businesses dependent on visitors.

Does anyone really need reform other than guidebook writers?

Mountain bike guides, event organisers, anyone involved in outdoor tourism…

Plus if you go to your local park or woodland, and the first thing you see is a load of “no cycling” signs, that doesn’t exactly encourage people to take up the sport, does it?

Sorry, I’m just being silly now. I guess you’ve explained adequately that you don’t think it’s okay. What do you think of the idea that the existing rights of way system is actually fine on the ground given that many people ignore it anyway without any consequences. Does anyone really need reform other than guidebook writers?

I think that Neils answer covers that very well, plus of course you are looking at it from the background and point of view of a (very) experienced outdoor enthusiast who is comfortable with maps and self navigation, being in the hills etc. There are a great many people already in the sport who aren’t that, and an even greater number who would be more likely to take it up if we could break down those boundaries that put them off.

It’s only when mountain biking starts looking at growing the 90% rather than providing for the 10% that we will be treated with the respect and provision that we truly deserve as a valid countryside user group. I also strongly believe that by doing that we can encourage people to form a greater connection with and respect for the natural environment, rather than the countryside being an alien thing that gets viewed out of car windows or on the telly. The wider potential of which on how they purchase and utilise resources is massive, with effects on health outcomes, rural economies, animal welfare, voting patterns, transport, emissions and climate change etc.

In addition to the excellent points above, the principle is actually pretty important in itself – and a change in the law would hopefully confer more respect on us as legitimate countryside users.

Sorry, I’ve been out technically trespassing on footpaths where nobody objected to my presence, sued me for damages or was anything other than friendly and courteous, anyway…

I’m unconvinced that the lack of availability of trails is a limiting factor in growing bicycle tourism, opening up footpaths might, I suppose, spread the erosion load across more tracks, but that’s a different kettle of eels.

I’m also dubious that mountain biking participation is limited by either the availability of footpaths or lack of respect from other ‘countryside users’, I suspect that if you’re experiencing lack of respect from others then you’re in some way inviting that, but being ‘legitimate’ doesn’t confer respect, it’s the way you act.

As a parallel, 4×4 drivers in the Peak, generally surly and distant. They may be legitimate users, but they’re not generally well liked ime. Legitimacy doesn’t automatically respect.

My take would be that participation in mtbing is effectively self-limiting in the same way that participation in climbing and mountaineering is, the majority of people don’t want to be tired, wet, muddy, risk their personal safety even at a low level etc. Most people view mountain bikers as odd because, in conventional terms, we are odd, not because we can’t legitimately ride footpaths and opening up footpaths seems unlikely to massively increase overall participation in the sport, why should it?

We live in a risk averse society where people seem reluctant to even walk to the shops – folk round here drive half a mile to buy their groceries for gawd’s sake – not because they can’t walk, but because they’re simply bone idle.

I may of course be completely wrong, but I can’t really see any genuine benefit from opening up footpaths bar cleansing some riders’ consciences and, of course, sparking a boom in guidebook writing. I can, in a devil’s advocate’s sort of way, see the potential for increased trail conflict.

I think it’s very easy to get carried away with the principle without really considering what it would mean in the real world, which, I suspect, is probably not very much.

Anyway, none of this is evidence based, so we’re just talking opinion no?

What BWD said plus 1.

neil the wheel – Member
…The serious point, though, is that an area is trying to develop a tourism base including promoting cycling, the best trails often cannot be promoted because they are not rights of way for cyclists….

It is a deterrent. I quite fancy doing a LEJoG offroad. There are a few routes published, but much of the pleasure in riding offroad is serendipity of discovering an interesting trail leading in the right direction. If you don’t have the “knowledge” you don’t know if you trespassing.

Under open access you can follow it or take a completely different route. I very rarely end up following the track I initially intended to because I’ll spot something interesting on another.

BadlyWiredDog – Member
…Anyway, none of this is evidence based, so we’re just talking opinion no?

There is one fact – open access works in Scotland and the Scandinavian countries.