[Closed] Broadcasting cheeky trails

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 [i][b]insane[/b][/i] 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.

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 [b]muttonhead[/b]. 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.

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.

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?

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...

http://unduro.co.uk/thoughts/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?

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, 4x4 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.

BWD >> 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.

Sounds like you are imposing your own elitist view on what MTB constitutes - if i tried to draw a direct line between provision of public footpaths/rambling as a limiting/driving factor on participation in climbing, mountaineering or fell running then you would laugh at me. However they are of course related, as although there may not be a direct causative connection, walking/rambling acts as an important gateway activity towards the other, more 'enthusiast' levels of the sport.

Consequently, if you look at cycling in the same way with, for example, data from the Scottish outdoor recreation survey:
[IMG] [/IMG]
you can see the importance of access to 'tracks and paths' for leisure/recreational cycling in general, rather than the more enthusiast levels of the sport that you appear to be discussing in your post. I suggest that the survey somewhat relied on people self identifying their activity as 'cycling on paths and tracks' rather than 'mountain biking' - where on earth one starts and the other stops I don't know, its very subjective.

I have argued for some time that the French "VTT" title better reflects the reality of UK off-oad cycling/MTB than the american 'mountain biking' phrase that we have ended up with, as even phrases like 'off-road' are debatable (is a tarmac surfaced railway line 'off-road'? how about a gravel one?) to me, as a simple guideline, our sport starts wherever the tarmac stops, and as such the provision of a great many more 'paths and tracks' through increasing cycle access to footpaths for the non-enthusiasts (who other surveys suggest suggest are significantly put off cycling by the lack of traffic free routes) plays an important role, whether you want to accept that its all the same thing, or whether 'track and path' cycling is just an important gateway activity to 'MTB'

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

I was gonna say, I think Scotland's experience could be the key here.

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.

I was thinking about the other countryside users/landowners who already have a problem with MTBers in general - rather than with me in particular.

Sounds like you are imposing your own elitist view on what MTB constitutes - if i tried to draw a direct line between provision of public footpaths/rambling as a limiting/driving factor on participation in climbing, mountaineering or fell running then you would laugh at me. However they are of course related, as although there may not be a direct causative connection, walking/rambling acts as an important gateway activity towards the other, more 'enthusiast' levels of the sport.

I guess all that hinges on whether there's a genuine shortage of rideable - legal and otherwise - tracks and that's probably going to vary from place to place. Not sure I'm being eliitist btw, just using MTB in the context of a mostly mountain biking and - estate car driving - forum.

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

Where there's a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border. It might work, it might not, but just because it works (mostly) in Scotland doesn't necessarily means it's be the same in, say, the Peak District or South Downs.

Interestingly it's not just in the UK, just been reading this piece regarding the US - http://bikepackersmagazine.com/trail-associations-bikepacking/

BWD - did you not know that Scotland and Scandinavia are identical in all respects to England and Wales.

People can't respect what is already available to them imo - the below was decorating the Garburn Pass the other day. Nice - Open MTBs new FB page photo?

[url= https://farm1.staticflickr.com/742/22420487124_49c76d0cca_k.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm1.staticflickr.com/742/22420487124_49c76d0cca_k.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/AadRGQ ]P1000510[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/82598458@N05/ ]jamesanderson2010[/url], on Flickr

BadlyWiredDog - Member

Where there's a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border

People always say this but by definition, the areas in Scotland which have the most local population, also have the most pressure on their local access. We have the pentland hills literally within edinburgh city limits- the 7th biggest city in the UK- and that works just fine.

Ironically, open access spreads people more widely and in many cases reduces impact and contention. I reckon the perception the English have of a crowded island is mostly because you're only allowed to use a tiny fraction of it.

People focus on a couple of specific areas that have problems, like Loch Lomond shores, and just forget what that means- they're exceptions.

hinges on whether there's a genuine shortage of rideable - legal and otherwise - tracks and that's probably going to vary from place to place

theres a couple of potential questions there, no 'shortage of rideable tracks for those enthusiasts who don't mind trespassing' does not necessarily mean there isn't a 'shortage of rideable tracks that appeal and are used by the non-enthusiast', the people who would potentially benefit most from the health outcomes of getting out and enjoying the countryside, or equally the people who feed the sport (both as and industry/bike sales and through the gateway effect)

Essentially Its very possible that the mountain bikers of the future never find the sport because they never venture beyond the 'no bikes sign' on the footpath at the end of their road.

In addition to the pure 'shortage of trails' there is the issue of trail connectivity, which remains one of the biggest challenges with the existing bridleway network. from a tourism point of view (since it was mentioned earlier) we can point to examples like the Pennine Bridleway - many of those trails already existed, it was the linking them together that has made it into a tourist facility. we could also look at routes like the Ridgeway, where some years ago the national trails manager stated [i]"although unsurfaced, the Ridgeway west of the Thames offers the potential to be one of the longest and finest off-road recreational opportunities for cyclists and equestrians in the country”[/i] - however due to the poor connectivity, whereby sections of this route remain footpath, it cannot be advertised or promoted as such.

There are definitely strong indicators that developing/increasing the provision of traffic free routes would be likely to lead to more people cycling, and people who already do cycling more - for example one (English county based ) survey I have access to shows the key role of traffic free routes: [IMG] [/IMG] [IMG] [/IMG] so its my strong contention that more paths where people can ride is *the* factor that is likely to lead to more people riding (Would mention here to just look at those figures compared with issues like access to affordable bikes where we throw shed loads of cash into hire schemes etc. to try and increase cycling)

on the other point:

Where there's a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border. It might work, it might not, but just because it works (mostly) in Scotland doesn't necessarily means it's be the same in, say, the Peak District or South Downs.

Agree, it won't necessarily work, however the population density argument is somewhat of a red herring, (edit, as Northwind says) the population density of the central belt of Scotland is as high as the post-industrial areas of the English landscape, and despite being subject to the same access laws as the much more desolate areas of Scotland, there have not been significant problems with bikes and the review of the land reform act clearly stated that on the whole it was working well (most of the problems identified in the review were with digs, camping and other low level anti-social behaviour on the urban fringe, cycling came out of the review virtually unmentioned)

BadlyWiredDog - Member
"There is one fact - open access works in Scotland and the Scandinavian countries."
...Where there's a far lower population density than many popular areas south of the border. It might work, it might not, but just because it works (mostly) in Scotland doesn't necessarily means it's be the same in, say, the Peak District or South Downs.

Maybe I have more faith in English standards of decency than you. 🙂

Simply relying on the notion that where the legal network falls short there will be a natural levelling supplied by cheeky trails does not compute in the real world and some agreement / tolerance of landowners will be needed if legal access is not established. Like Ninfan points out it is necessary to increase and develop the population of riders which, despite some groans from those preferring the exclusivity, is necessary to show the economic value multipliers that both the Cycle trade and Tourism industry to invest in growth by creating more to consume.

its not just the timid and uncertain riders and guidebook writers who need certainty of rights I was recently approached by a small landowner in an area of exceedingly poor rights of way access who, with the down turn in faming was developing buildings for holiday lets across the land and whilst able to increase access for renters was not so keen to make the extra access public. However they were more concerned that their future clients, who would mostly be horse and cycle riders, would not end up simply tramping all over their neighbours land where there was no right or agreement for them to do so because of the ill feeling it would cause.

A nearby shooting estate have already singled out an increase in illegal riding has arisen following the development of a promoted legal MTB route through the area, short of access, as being the main reasons why they claim to be an overload of illegal riding occurring on their land. At a terse meeting with their Farming Union rep and and arsey country practise solicitor they demanded we immediately provided an armful of 'no cycling allowed' signs on these routes to compensate them. This request was declined as the responsibility to define the extent of access falls to the landowner in case law. That led the solicitor to remind me should his client to accidentally leave a box of tacks, open on his quad as he rode up these routes which might accidentally spill that might have the same effect just as another of his clients, faced with a similar situation, now accidentally dunks the spinning head of a hedge cutter in hawthorn, blackthorn and gorse alongside paths that suffered un-consented use by mtb riders, and which had a fairly immediate desired effect. Many Country Solicitors and their Land Agent chums even today think protection of land from the public is an over-riding priority for their profession and there are probably some here who would pat them on the backs for saying so if it keeps the hordes out but not them.

This kind of nonsense if going on all the time, The Countryside Alliance in Wales has provided a lot of lobbying not just to stop increased access but to secure more effective powers for landowners to stop unauthorised access irrespective of what benefits it may bring to wider society or local economy.

Without some legal certainty there will be significant areas of land in some areas of this country where any informal access suitable for a wide range of users has the permanence of tumbleweed other than for a handful of riders prepared to square up to a landowner when challenged

Sharing trail knowledge is great.

How it is shared matters.

Showing someone a trail, suggesting under what weather conditions it's good to ride without damaging it, telling them what days and times it is best to avoid riding it to avoid the local moaners, all matters.

A heat map of trail use, paired with an incentive to take the shortest route, rather than the twisty route, is not a good way to spread trail knowledge… even if it is now the most common way.