Viewing 21 posts - 161 through 181 (of 181 total)
  • Walna Scar Sanitisation.
  • bajsyckel
    Full Member

    TJ – I have absolutely no beef with the claim that the type of work carried out can limit drainage issues, and it does have some merits. I also know that this is considered “best practice” – a term which is shorthand for cost-effective/ easily transferable due to employing a limited range of technical approaches in a standardised manner. Indeed, the IMBA recommended spec. for tracks is reasonably close to that seen here, and Walna Scar is only a recent example of countless other instances of ‘best practice’ seen adopted across the country. However, to claim that the techniques used are “identical” to those that initially created such routes is to pursue an absurdly revisionist agenda – unless of course I am overlooking the precedent set in the 1800s and earlier for large diameter plastic drainage, geotextiles and mechanical diggers.

    [edit] In any case, the major issue to me is one that I think a lot of people have been noting, basically, that for many people tracks matter. They are not simply detached from the places through which they pass, and we don’t simply happen to use them because we value the areas around them. We value the diversity of experiences that different tracks offer – and that is something that is (IMO) common to all users. This is not an argument against access management, but more an argument that management needs to recognise what sort of access is valuable, not simply view provision of access as an end in itself. Why should we support ‘best practice’ solutions that revolve around a reductive and limited conception of what our experiences should be, based around the visual consumption of “the countryside” and its contents as spectacle?

    Cheeky-Monkey
    Free Member

    Some really good points there and a really balance view from bajsyckel, stuff like that reminds me why STW forums can be worth trawling through.

    As for TJ :rolleyes: I honestly wish there was some way to filter you out as even when you’re quite possibly right (which I don’t believe you are in this case) the way you put it across just grates, to me. Certainly the blind faith in the “people that know” is rather strange to me, but then it is a gambit I’d expect when your argument is based on google 😉

    Personally, if anyone wanted to get involved in stuff I’d look at whatever local trail / advocacy group there might be (doesn’t always have to be formal) and at CTC.

    Sanny
    Free Member

    bajsyckel

    Eloquently put! Chapeau! You’ve taken the gist of many of the arguments and distilled it into simple terms that hits the nail squarely on the head.

    Sanny

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    simons_nicolai-uk
    Free Member

    Isn’t there some balance to be struck which would address drainage and erosion without removing ALL natural features. A natural set of rock steps for example. I’m thinking of a lovely little descent on the way to Great Langdale that had been given this treatment in the last few years.

    If you’re going to turn these into ‘trail centre’ type trails then you could work with the natural features rather than trying to remove them completely (which is surely what would have happened when they were originally built and didn’t have access to a JCB to flatten the lot)

    grum
    Free Member

    Eloquently put! Chapeau! You’ve taken the gist of many of the arguments and distilled it into simple terms that hits the nail squarely on the head.

    Agreed, much better expressed than I could have done but I agree wholeheartedly.

    Drac
    Full Member

    unless of course I am overlooking the precedent set in the 1800s and earlier for large diameter plastic drainage, geotextiles and mechanical diggers.

    But they built a ‘Traditional’ trail with those found in the area, that’s why they didn’t use slate but a material not found in the Lakes instead.

    chakaping
    Free Member

    Why should we support ‘best practice’ solutions that revolve around a reductive and limited conception of what our experiences should be

    Very well put.

    And of course that begs the question of who “best practice” is best for? The accountant?

    Northwind
    Full Member

    bajsyckel – Member

    However, to claim that the techniques used are “identical” to those that initially created such routes is to pursue an absurdly revisionist agenda – unless of course I am overlooking the precedent set in the 1800s and earlier for large diameter plastic drainage, geotextiles and mechanical diggers.

    Pretty pedantic, that… The results are the same as if they used manual labour and stacked-stone drains, just that it’s faster. Would you argue that if they don’t do it exactly how the original road was built, then there’s no merit to doing it almost the same?

    bajsyckel
    Full Member

    Thanks for those supportive comments – glad it was worth reading to someone else at least. Drac – I’m not sure I understand your post. Northwind – admittedly it is pedantic, but I simply don’t agree that the results of this ‘best practice’ can be argued as analogous to previous maintenance (having been involved with consultations and trials of similar ‘best practice’ ROW improvements elsewhere). But that’s to miss the more important point – to designate a route and its desired characteristics by appealing to a given historical point towards which a route is perpetually ‘conserved’ is a fundamentally flawed approach. Not only is it riven with inaccuracies, it is inherently contestable and any decision will not only be argued to be arbitrary but possibly irrelevant to future use, which is surely what matters.

    What I am arguing for, is for the management of ROW to reflect the reasons why a route is valued by those that use it, values that may include this history, but also include the present and its potential futures. To me, and I believe to a significant proportion of those who use these routes, one crucial part of their value centres upon their difference – we like to use different routes in different ways, not simply because they take us through different places, but because they are in themselves unique, something which the increasingly widespread instigation of heavy handed ‘best practice’ solutions inevitably reduces. (OK, I’ve possibly dragged this off topic enough now).

    And, like others have said (even as someone who is wary of such things) it is useful to take part in consultations, access forums, local campaigns and so on – if we find stuff like this so controversial and important, we should try to find ways that we can influence the way access and ROW decisions are made.

    Drac
    Full Member

    Drac – I’m not sure I understand your post

    There was a claim back in the thread it was built using traditional techniques for the area. Traditional trails in the Lakes used quarry slate waste. But they sell that now for people like me decorate their gardens with. So they’ve had to use hardcore from another area, not exactly traditional then.

    Wozza
    Free Member

    Was chatting to my brother about the bottom of Garburn having the same treatment. How about a mass STW offensive where we build a berm on every corner? 🙂

    bajsyckel
    Full Member

    Drac – Gotcha. Thought you were probably saying something like that.

    simons_nicolai-uk
    Free Member

    What I am arguing for, is for the management of ROW to reflect the reasons why a route is valued by those that use it, values that may include this history, but also include the present and its potential futures. To me, and I believe to a significant proportion of those who use these routes, one crucial part of their value centres upon their difference

    A good point, clearly made.

    This isn’t a road any more – no longer is it’s function to be an ‘important trade route’ between two places – it’s used solely for leisure and I don’t think the smooth, wide, city-park-style path that’s been installed is what (m)any(?) of it’s users are really looking for – Walkers, Mountain Bikers or Horseriders. The one exception is probably the local farmers.

    We don’t restore ruined castles or abbeys to their original condition – we stabilise them and protect them from further deterioration. What’s been done here seems to go a long way beyond that.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    Drac – Moderator

    So they’ve had to use hardcore from another area, not exactly traditional then.

    Unless I’m missing something, it’s locally extracted subsoil not your typical imported kittylitter.

    bajsyckel – Member

    What I am arguing for, is for the management of ROW to reflect the reasons why a route is valued by those that use it, values that may include this history, but also include the present and its potential futures.

    I’d be in favour of that… Trouble it’s not very compatible with the english system. Almost all ROWs and bridleways exist only because of their history. If present day needs and desires are to be the driving force, won’t that include the present day desire for councils not to maintain and build trails, and for farmers not to have rights of way on their land, etc?

    The current system is frankly ridiculous but if you knock out one central timber who knows where the wreckage would land.

    Drac
    Full Member

    Unless I’m missing something, it’s locally extracted subsoil not your typical imported kittylitter.

    Looks like some sort of crap hardcore to me, if it’s subsoil that’ll be great in the Lakes with it’s long months of continuous dry spells.

    splatz
    Free Member

    “Of interest to me is the question of consultation over changes. With regard to physical alterations, it is not our standard practice to consult user bodies when carrying out our basic statutory duties. Mainly because it is just that – a duty, and something we have to do.”

    This is the typical response of quango’s like the LDNPA. There is no consultation on this type of sanitisation and they are unresponsive to any views which contradict what they have decided is the ‘best practice’. I have made many attempts to raise these issues with the Rights of Way officers but it always falls on deaf ears.

    And what they say isn’t even true……take the stone staircase off Dollywagon down to Grisedale Tarn…..that sort of restoration makes it impassable for horses or carts or most mtbikers. How does that fit with “basic statutory duties”? Making BW’s easier for walkers and damn everyone else just isn’t good enough.

    I live in the Lakes and these are my local trails. Every year more and more of the rocky stuff disappears under this kind of desecration. It’s just wrong. These are the last wild places we have in England so why stand back and let men in suits who have never been on a mtbike in their lives destroy all the best trails without complaint?

    And if mtbikers find the trails too tough and rocky they should get out more……get fitter and take some skills courses! Or go somewhere easier to ride. That’s not elitist it’s plain common sense…….

    Loughrigg in the last couple of years. The descent from Iron Keld gone recently. And now you say Garburn is next…….my oh my oh my…….

    lowey
    Full Member

    What have they done to iron keld?

    DavidM
    Free Member

    OK, I ride the Lakes a lot, and I’m not ashamed to say that I’m gutted at what has happened to Walna Scar. That is the side of the fence I am on, however, reading it through it is not obvious what I should do to get involved in this kind of thing.

    I reckon there are a lot of people who will read this thread, but don’t have the time to work out how or what to do to give mtb’ers more of a voice. So, i appreciate it is asking a lot, but if some could post some simple instructions detailing WHO TO CONTACT and WHAT CLUBS/GROUPS etc to sign up to, that would be super super brill.

    mozzie
    Free Member

    Choose a weekend to claim the footpaths, politely of course. Thousands of us making a big point. If the suits destroy all the legally rideable stuff then there’s an awful lot of ‘footpath’ to move to.
    I’m putting a cat among the pigeons here of course but unless there’s a concerted effort to show strength of opinion in numbers then we’re not going to achieve any change in direction for the ‘improvers’.
    What is the best way to get our thoughts on this to the people who make the decisions?

    DavidM
    Free Member

    I think the ‘upkeep’ of trails is a completely seperate issue to access. Similar work has been carried out on footpaths (Place Fell) is one, and feel certain that the majority of walkers will feel the same way about this upkeep. Freinds of the Lake District might be worth contacting as they mention they ‘work closely with the national park, and are on the Lakes Park Partnership’

    Any other ideas?

    GaVgAs
    Free Member

    The descent from Iron Keld gone recently

    A slight exaggeration I think,although I agree with your comments splatz

    Iron Kelds ok Lowey,the work done has filled in a big gully/rut that was washed out by the floods last winter.

    Its still a proper trail, and as sweet as ever.. 😉

Viewing 21 posts - 161 through 181 (of 181 total)

The topic ‘Walna Scar Sanitisation.’ is closed to new replies.