Does sharing trail info make things worse?

Your question makes no sense. How does saying somewhere is rubbish encourage people to over ride something.

There are so many places you can now find info about where 'secret' trails are, the cat is well and truly out of the bag. It's never going back in.

As such, all you can really do is to exercise personal responsibility not to ride tracks that are weather sensitive in the wet, and to encourage others to do the same.

In a place like the peak I suspect it makes almost no difference.

TBH I think it's mostly actually about access rights and "are there enough trails/paths", and a symptom of scarcity and excessive access restriction? If there's not enough trails then it does cause overpressure for sure. But when there's a good trail network it's pretty rare for trail info sharing to be problematic just because like with trail contention and busyness it spreads the load. The solution shouldn't be secrecy and rationing and gatekeeping the pittance that you've been allowed in the fear that you lose even that, it should be more access.

As far as weather goes, you can't avoid trails that should be avoided when wet til you know they should be avoided when wet. Good trail sharing always comes with that information, going exploring or following signs or maps never does. There's a very wet-sensitive trail near me that suffers a lot from foot erosion, and I think it's mostly just that it's signposted and that walkers don't really have the same information network/sharing systems that bikes have. It's in a paper ride guide book I have that's at least 15 years old and it says "don't ride this when wet". If you get told about it, they say "don't ride when wet", if you look on trailforks it says "don't ride when wet", but if you follow the signs you get none of that and so it's really common to see mud-drowned walkers coming out either end having had a not particularly good time, and when you say "yeah it's nice when it's dry but avoid when wet" they say "wish I'd known that".

Basically I think because bikers have a higher knowledge requirement- we want to know if it rides at all, if there's a good direction, if it has 50 stiles or gates, if it flows or not, how hard it is, if it's worth riding, all that stuff, whereas walking you pretty much just need to know it exists. So for that reason we have better info systems and we make good use of it and this is just part of it.

Obviously there's exceptions, for that scratched in trail that can't support any numbers, or that under-the-radar trail that will get destroyed if it gets busy.

It's a bit like sharing fishing marks on the Solway. You do the hard yards, fishing day and night, high tide/low tide then find the sweet spot. Bass/Huss/Tope/Conger/Rays/Plaice/Cod.Then tell everyone on SM. Next thing, it's fished out. Just no.

People are confusing "cheeky trails" which KotP doesn't promote and the condition of "legitimate" trails which he does.

Make the question clearer.

I also note that the trail you've shared a picture of isn't a bridleway which makes me wonder (I already know) what's up there.

I suspect everywhere is over-ridden just now if it isn't a trail centre...plenty folk don't consider the weather and trail conditions, so it is inevitable that places gets roughened up.

A lot tend to 'recover' a bit as the drier weather comes in, but plenty don't.

There are far more people riding these days and with the likes of ebikers, trail conditions don't seem to be such an issue for some riders.

I don't like it myself, but it doesn't appear to be stoppable as 1 person's idea of unsuitable could be another person's idea of ideal.

I've said it before but the volume of people rising these days means many haven't experienced trail condition issues so they just don't consider it...for the older riders who remember the earlier days then they tend to be more aware (but that doesn't mean they don't just ignore the conditions and ride anyway).

We are a small island with loads of riding, but the numbers riding the trails are increasing so this isn't something that can be resolved easily.

Given the photo I presume you mean the cheeky trails off win hill. I think most people who ride them will be fully aware they will be churned up and very challenging for most of the winter months. So online updates about their condition is unlikely to make any difference. If they have the will and the skill, they'll just ride them regardless.

Good point: fair enough

Locally we have issues with information being shared after events. Thing is the events run over private property that the land owners have generously given the event organisers permission to use. They give permission when there are no crops or livestock, and open up gates they normally keep closed. Then a competitor logs the GPX and shares it, and someone goes and rides it, and gets into an argument and fisticuffs with the land owner who explains to the event organiser that whilst he's quite happy to give MTBers the run of his land one day a year if that means being invaded by destructive thugs the rest of the year he's no longer up for it. 🙁

I think most people would heed any trail conditions report that says it's a nightmare mudfest, based on self-interest alone. Like say you can't pedal through it, it's deeper than your shoes, or there are foot-deep flooded sections across the entire width. But if it isn't that bad and avoiding would just be for the sake of trail preservation, plenty of people won't give a damn.

I suspect everywhere is over-ridden just now if it isn’t a trail centre

I don't think many places are. There are places that see a few mountain bikers for sure (the Peak obviously one of them) but outside of the hot-spots its rare to see another biker when I'm out riding,

I think anyone using KOTP would be doing it to see what's riding well or not at the moment. Therefore I'd flag up crap trails with him.

Bit further over than you in sunny Chesterfield but everything over here has been so waterlogged for so long it's just not fun.

The Eastern Moors loop is holding up fairly well but other than that I've been riding more TPT type stuff. Not exciting but gets me out.

@nickc I'm not sure that is the case...there are a few areas near me (been used for decades) that have had an unofficial agreement that nothing is posted on social media (Strava, Instagram, Facebook, etc) as landowner is actively not wanting people there. Been ok up until about 3 years ago and it is all over social media now and numbers are up and new trails are appearing all over the place. Landowner seems to now patrol the area and dissuades riders. They don't want more trails and they don't want the damage (as they see it) caused by bikers and their trails.
It was never a hotspot but since social media it is way more popular.

It’s also eBikes. There’s a much lower ability barrier to entry, people can explore further off the beaten path, and can do more laps.

None of those things are bad per se. But it exacerbates a delicate balance.

E-bikes have certainly had an impact locally

The trail near where I took the photo across the top of Win Hill (not the stuff in the woods) was completely blown out by increased traffic where I think the volume of riders (and possibly the weight of the bikes) has made a mess of a trail that used to not see much action.

All the other riders I saw were on e-bikes

I'm quite conflicted over this. On the one hand, I broadly believe that mountain bikers should be free to ride suitable trails, or at least suitable rights of way, generally. On the other, it feels like there's an increasing disconnect between riders and the trails we ride. By that I mean that fewer riders seem to have a sympathetic connection with the outdoors - perhaps fewer have a general outdoors / hill walking / climbing background - and with that seems to come a disregard for the erosion we cause to the terrain we ride on.

I think the more technology we put into bikes, the more we isolate ourselves from the ground. More suspension; less feel for what we're riding on. Electric assistance; less sensation of traction, reduced ability to moderate effort and slippage. It becomes more and more about the riding and less about where we're riding. A sort of inexorable progression towards a sort of Scalectric culture. Ditto huge fat, downhill-style 'trail' tyres.

I also wonder if trail centres and bike parks mean that some riders just don't think about their impact on where they ride as the mind-set transfers from purpose-built trails to 'natural stuff' - and yes I know trails anywhere are by definition not 'natural', but there's a difference between a purpose-built, 'armoured' bike park run and a bridleway in the Peak or Lake District. As an aside, if you step back, a lot of bike parks are basically massive erosion scars on the hillside. Just really ugly, though no-one ever says that.

Bottom line: when I started riding 30-odd years ago, people were hugely concerned about trail conditions and what you should and shouldn't ride in wet conditions, these days the majority of riders don't seem to give a stuff, or at least not much of one. I'm more worried about trashed trails than Trash Free ones tbh, though I'm not sure people generally care at all.

Completely agree

Similarly I’ve been riding over 30 years, almost entirely natural trails rather than trail centres and have recently been enjoying a lighter, shorter travel bike.

I tend to ride based on the trail conditions this time of year, but like you I feel like I’m increasingly in the minority.

Yeah, am old enough to remember when footpaths were somewhere where we weren't supposed to ride, and recognised that often this was the case because the delicate ground wouldn't sustain higher traffic. So when we inevitably did ride them we did it with care, cloak and dagger style and absolutely didn't publicise it to all and sundry. A new generation of riders just don't seem to give a toss.

I said and think the same as @BadlyWiredDog, just he has said it far better than me.

Pretty much most secret trails can be found now using Strava heatmap.  Someone will have accidentally left their Strava on and if you zoom in close enough,  trace will be left.

Absolutely no question. YES. Sadly it is unstoppable. I cannot think of a single example where nature has been improved by man and a barely used track has been improved by use or manicuring. Man x many makes it worse.

As an example  I blame the little A5 TBM magazine for ruining motorcycle trail riding. From 1995 to the mid 00's the activities snowballed along with their publications and route guides. What do we get? Bans, legal actions and a stack of incomers moaning at  the locals for something they have been doing for decades.

Possibly no if you have a vested interest and no conscience.

Bikesandboots. I reckon you are a bit inclined to see the good in people. Most MTBers seem to have no interest apart from their days ride. If they did they would ride the road. Of course every one here isn't that sort of pillock are they?

Bikesandboots. I reckon you are a bit inclined to see the good in people

I'm not - my point was that people would avoid it only if the state of the trail means they won't enjoy the ride. Self-interest.

I have an interest here.

KoftheP, as Podge says, typically won't bounce the cheeky stuff out further because of the impact you fear not only on the trails themselves, but on the image of mountain bikers overall. A key role of the feed has been in improving the image of mountain bikers by giving a clear demonstration that we have an inherent community responsibility that this thread is wonderfully showing. We do care about the places we ride, and KoftheP gives a very easy way of showing that quite publically.

At the recent Peak District MTB AGM, veteran access campaigner Henry Folkard bemoaned the impact of social media from a climbing perspective saying that once a new route is shared, the next day that route would be snarled. KoftheP doesn't punt out cheeky trails but does vociferously campaign for improved access and rights for MTB. And it gets listened too. I've seen KoftheP used as a case study for how mountain bikers are responsible and important.

So what? Well then it goes from being about YOUR ride and YOUR favourite path to being about OUR image and OUR role. By sharing, you're immediately doing a good thing.

The unintentional click bait title here would elicit a "yes, of course" response. Saying "this [cheeky] trail off X" is clearly going to bring an unwanted increase in traffic. But sharing trail conditions updates, like Jeffl says, helps riders choose wisely. And it does flag new, legitimate places to ride. And it really does.

It isn't for you to tell people not to ride things.

I have fortunately moved up to Scotland now, but when I was in the Peak almost all the pressure on particular trails could be eased up if they just gave bikers full access rights. KotP is wrong on this with his "don't ride cheeky trails" gatekeeping policy. Advertise the cheeky trails, spread the riders out, **** the law. That will slightly increase pressures on footpaths but ease the pressure on bridleways.

Maybe one day your overlords will see fit to let you ride what you want and really already the pressure more evenly, making the trails better for everyone, but I don't believe this will happen in your lifetime so you may as well do what's right and sensible rather than what the law says you can or can't do in terms of access.

Or you could come to Scotland and rise what you like when it's in a fit condition to ride. And if a trail you like is too boggy, you have the choice of any other trail nearby that isn't. Not something that's been designated as acceptable for bikes to go on fifty or a hundred years ago.

footpaths were somewhere where we weren’t supposed to ride, and recognised that often this was the case because the delicate ground

Don't make the mistake that there is any kind of case use for suitability in the classification of footpaths and bridleways.

Their classification is entirely based on the (sometimes very old) evidence of what traffic used the route - and nothing else.

KoftheP doesn't have a "don't ride cheeky trails" gatekeeper policy.  At all.

Evidence:

https://kofthep.com/2022/10/28/coasting/

More evidence:

https://kofthep.com/2020/02/10/rights-are-wrong/

More:

https://kofthep.com/2017/01/18/who-died-and-made-you-keeper-of-the-peak/

You lot banging on about gatekeepers and advocating a free-for-all are as delusional as Tories who think the market is the best way to regulate essential services like water and public transport. You're trying to make a viewpoint fit your personal interests despite all the evidence to the contrary. About this time last year I took advantage of the deep freeze to go for a ride over 'cheeky' terrain past Stoodley Pike. I was horrified by the evidence I was bouncing over, a mass of rutted erosion caused by overweight, over entitled middle aged ****s on e-bikes. Made me ashamed to be on two wheels, haven't been back since. My mileage this year is way down because I just don't have the stomach to be associated with what I'm seeing. I've had to reappraise my whole relationship with mountain biking.

I'm afraid I also have little time for publicised routes like the KAW and Badger Divide which funnel convoys of people who can't be bothered devising their own routes onto once-quiet tracks. They're just money making exercises for people who string together some RoW, flog a book off the back of it then walk away from the problems it creates. See also 'wild camping' as an exercise in revenue generation for social media ****s.

Is it against the law to ride cheeky as suggested above? It might be trespassing, but is it a crime? Is there a law which specifically prohibits riding a bicycle in certain areas? The law is restrictive (eg one must not…) not prescriptive (eg one may do this…). Is this a thread in itself? Will I get lynched?

No, it isn't against the law to ride cheeky. In fact, there's a strong argument that it's the only way to get things changed.  Just has to be done 'right'. See Rights Are Wrong up there ^

I’m afraid I also have little time for publicised routes like the KAW and Badger Divide which funnel convoys of people who can’t be bothered devising their own routes onto once-quiet tracks. They’re just money making exercises for people who string together some RoW, flog a book off the back of it then walk away from the problems it creates.

Some of that is Cycling UK! They've developed this penchant for "curating" various routes out of a mix of trails, Sustrans paths, quiet roads etc and marketing it...

There was one trail they advertised in Cornwall (part of the West Kernow Way maybe...?) as being suitable for families, sort of forgetting that there was a sodding great bog in the middle of it - it did beg the question of whether anyone had actually ridden it first or if there was simply someone in an office with a pile of OS maps and some colouring pencils... 🤔

But how would that bog get fixed without some impetus to do it? 

And Scotch types taking the moral high ground over access rights can get in the sea. It’s nothing to do with that, it’s just about population density and pressure of use.

1) Scotch is the produce ie whisky.  Scots are the people.

2) actually its about attitudes not population density.  The pentlands is a park area next to a growing city of Edinburgh and surrounded b y commuter towns,  We still have right to roam there and its higher population density than much of England.  What a lot of folk outside of Scotland fail to understand is right to roam is not an absolute right.  Its a qualified right that comes with a duty to be responsible nor do landowners have any need to make paths cycle friendly

Does the bog need to be 'fixed'? Only asking as a local area near me has a lowland raised bog and it has some rather special creatures in it - some special newts and snails - there is no attempt to 'fix' it (and it shouldn't be) as it is recognised as a valuable thing to have.

 It’s nothing to do with that, it’s just about population density and pressure of use.

You've just solved your problem. There's pressure on some trails in England is becasue we're funnelled onto tiny percentage of them. Spread the load a bit and the damage on all of them is lessened. I'm with @munrobiker, I'll ride where I want, A footpath is public land as far as I'm concerned, and cycling in a public place is an entirely normal thing to do. The attitude that says that routes shouldn't be publicised or shared is exactly the same attitude from walkers telling us "You're not allowed to ride here"

cannot think of a single example where nature has been improved by man and a barely used track has been improved by use or manicuring. Man x many makes it worse.

the famous torridon trails are partly built trails - built because over use has caused erosion over years - mainly by walkers.  Very much a must do trail, very much manicured in places

People who ride mountain bikes have a duty to be responsible and not do undue damage to the path network and the nature in general. This is some thing that some riders choose to ignore. I think that guide books were the thin end of the wedge with damage to trails and particularly Vertebrate Graphics habit of including the 10 best bits of single track, 10 best descents etc. One of my favourite bits of single track in the lakes became one of the 10 best and is now a muddy eroded mess. Great work chaps.

Offroad riding has got to find some sort of balance with access, I dont care if you put in a bike track in a monoculture forest plantation or ride on a footpath, I do care if you come to the local wood build a jump park leaving pit fall traps and damaging the tree roots of ancient trees and then abandoning the the whole lot when you are bored.

Nature is in a steep decline and anything cyclists can do to minimise the impact of their activities is a positive. I dont tend to ride in the Dark Peak very often now as it's over crowded and eroded. When I first rode the briddle way by Jacobs Ladder it was a grassy climb, it wasnt the last time I looked.

Spread out be responsible and do your best to minimise your impact. You dont have to ride anywhere if its going to cause problems.

My rule of riding, when I lived in the South Lakes and did far more MTBing than I do now was that I would ride more or less where I wanted so long as it was sustainable. That meant that, at peak time, I would avoid many BWs, RUPPs etc because I knew they'd be heaving with walkers. Even though it was perfectly [b]legal[/b] for me to be there, it would have been frustrating for me and annoying for the hordes of walkers.

However, a quiet FP, far out in the hills with no-one on it, would be fair game. And if/when you get that far out, most people out there are fairly committed serious walkers / hikers and they're (usually) fairly ambivalent about the rights and wrongs of whether or not you should be there too. The huge majority of the "you shouldn't be on this path!" stuff comes on trails 500m from the car park. Out in the hills, it's mostly all pretty good-natured.

montgomery - I witnessed exactly that on that lovely techy traversing section as you head away from Studley Pike. Two blokes on e-bikes chewing their way through the soft stuff instead of riding the dry, rocky line 🙁

Away from access and rights and wrongs,regarding sharing trail info, nature soon reclaims a path if it isn't used.

I do look after my local trails, footpaths and bridleways. I don't object to people riding them but I do object to them being named on YouTube.

I'm not sure what this thread has turned into, but human erosion of the countryside has always been a given, are we talking about erosion so bad that it ruins the trail for bikers, or something else, again, erosion is just a given, but if it's not a footpath or bridleway, then is this just a case of outsiders coming in and ruining our 'cheeky' trails?

If it's rights of way, that's always been contentious, no matter where, right to roam is great in Scotland, but landowners would still try to persuade you to bugger off, sometimes because they had genuine concerns, i.e. grouse shooting or other things where liability was a concern to them, but again, there are many who do not have concerns and have no concerns of right to roam, or in England/Wales, 'trespassers', i've lived half my life in Scotland and half in England, and rarely noticed the difference.

As for naming trails and giving out info, i've done it in FoD and around my area, but mainly through group rides, or knowledge of folk i speak too, last time i used to ride often i used to do some trail fairy stuff, my worry wasn't about usage, it was about people creating more jumps and so on, and in obvious areas, like dafties building gap jumps over a bridleway and the likes, trail erosion isn't the end of it, every winter the places i go (clay based) are horrific, but a little work and they're back to rideable by summer, both weeks of it!

@montgomery - Sheffield, next to the Eastern Peak, and Edinburgh, next to the Pentlands, are roughly the same size, and the terrain and environment is similar (heath and moorland). Same pressures, handled differently. In the Pentlands, you can ride on any trail without issue. So, if a trail is muddy and boggy, you ride a different one til spring that will handle a bike better. In the Peak, most riders stick to the small percentage of bridleways, regardless of conditions, because that's where you're allowed to go. That compounds the issue.

I can't say I've noticed a problem with erosion by bikes in the Pentlands except at two particularly boggy unavoidable patches. But the problem is also caused by walkers.

Maybe the problem in your area is actually loads of entitled English people?

Sheffield - and Manchester. And Derby. And a big motorway either side. Quantum difference in pressure of use, and the reason I haven't been there for 30 years because I don't want to be part of that problem.