Nice way to goad me into replying. Certainly worked in this case.

The DNR updated their maps to visually represent what type of vehicle is suggested for use on a given trail based on trail conditions.

When you turn onto a road with your Corvette would you rather see the seasonal road sign right off the bat so you know it's not going to be a smooth paved road, or wait until you were 5 miles down it before you found out your car lacked the clearance to continue down the road?

Law still says these trails are open to ORVs, which includes ATVs. The maps still say this as well.

Now when an ATV rider from Detroit makes the trek up to Wolverine they will not be surprised when their 50" ATV can't easily fit down certain sections of the trail. The previous map included a picture of an ATV and mis-lead folks into thinking the trails were maintained to ATV specifications. Now they know the trail, while still available to ride on, will probably be on the narrow side for them.

 

Hmmm.. so am I to correctly assume that if the trail maintenence is being paid for with what amounts to public funds, and if the trails "were" marked with a symbol representing an ATV trail, is it not reasonable to expect the trail to meet the minimum standard that ATV's require in the first place? Sounds like if that is happening, that someone may have profited from this action, and mis-represented the labor being performed.... Did I miss something here?

I understand the privatization issue, and the funds availability for non profits only etc.... But how could such a thing happen? Which group was the one that requested and received the grant money to perform the work? Again it goes back to equal representation on behalf of all Off road groups.... are all interests being served equally?

Being someone from out of state planning a trip to the area, it would upset me greatly to have spent a great deal of time and money to get there only to be disapointed by trails that were mis-represented. It surely would make me think twice before I returned. And let's face it, we are talking recreation dollars, and associated tax revenues.

I don't know, I guess there is a certain level of expectation that most enthusiasts assume is being served... and when the system fails a certain group, it is natural to ask why and how.

I sure hate politics.....

 

Nope, you are assuming too much. The markings on the trail, on the ground, have not changed. This is only the map that has had one image changed. What is allowed on the trail, how it's maintained both now and previously, have not changed. The symbol on the marker, by spec, should only have a cycle on it for this trail symbol; again this has not changed.

Yes, you missed something, see above. The group performing maintenance on this trail have been going above and beyond the specification as defined, inspected and enforced by the DNR.

Yes, this is exactly why updating the maps was a good thing. Previously all maps had the same legend which show cycles and ATVs and the language used to define the trail was misleading. Basically they used the same for trails that were maintained at 50" and for 40". Just going by the map, you would have difficulty in determining which type of trail you were going to encounter.

 

[quote]
Originally posted by: 2TrakR
"...The DNR updated their maps to visually represent what type of vehicle is suggested for use on a given trail based on trail conditions..."

Visually representing vehicles isn't any more relevant than "the DNR" in this discussion. We're talking about the same "super-secret" orv leaders you like to hang around with hawking trail maps that don't even resemble the official "DNR"maps you'd like to switch this conversation around to discuss. If it makes you feel any better..YZ man tried to play the same game and failed.

"..When you turn onto a road with your Corvette would you rather see the seasonal road sign right off the bat so you know it's not going to be a smooth paved road, or wait until you were 5 miles down it before you found out your car lacked the clearance to continue down the road?..."

(lol) [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]...pretty slick switching your argument from supporting the official map showing our trails during your first sentance....then immediately switching gears to support your buddy's map showing <U>only</U> your two-wheeled trail in the second!.
Maybe 'slick' isn't the word....I'm thinking maybe 'typical',,,(hey, at least you

"...Law still says these trails are open to ORVs, which includes ATVs. The maps still say this as well...'"

(lol)....you just won't stop trying to switch this focus away from your red-headed-step-child atver's efforts to sell these bogus maps...will you?

"....Now when an ATV rider from Detroit makes the trek up to Wolverine they will not be surprised when their 50" ATV can't easily fit down certain sections of the trail. The previous map included a picture of an ATV <U>and</U> mis-lead folks into thinking the trails were maintained to ATV specifications...."

Since you refuse to shine the light of day on Detoit suburbanites changing official maps to eliminate atv trails and replace them with cycle only trails...I'm going to do something I just plain hate to do and make a fool out of you with the above statement. I've got the older map in my hand that made determining what width this trail was maintained to very simple.
IN plain letters..."for all to see" was the red-lettered instruction: MAINTAINED AS A MOTORCYCLE TRAIL.

There was never any "confusion" regarding this trail. The only "confusing" message it sent out was to cause people like myself to ask WHY these 100 MILES of trail...are maintained to motorcycle widths...in the first place!
Very few 4-wheeled enthusiasts are aware of the assinine rule these cyclists have used to play both sides of the "access" issue for years. It states that you can take a quad down (and this is the way they see it) "their" trails alright...just as long as the first obstruction you come to on those 100 miles....you back that evil 4-wheeled bastard all the way back to the trailhead!
This simply allows cyclists like YZman and 2Trakkr to play the game you see here. Ignore the fact that these new maps are even more distorted than the current official ones...while fibbing about the fact that these older official maps ever needed to be changed in the first place.

"...Now they know the trail, while still available to ride on, will probably be on the narrow side for them....."

Again, Jeremy...there is no indication on the maps we've been referring to over and over again here...that these trails are "availiable" to anybody but yourself and your arrogant 2-wheeled arrogant cycle buddies. You can try and change history regarding what was CLEARLY indicated on the very <U>simple</U> <U>and</U> <U>clear</U> old maps while ignoring what is hawked for a buck today today; yet if you're having trouble mustering up a better effort than this?....maybe it's time to call in "re-inforcements" from somebody outside the local AMA. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Like I told the DNR....any doofus on the street can alter an official DNR map and sell it...yet the measure of a man (or woman) begins when the time comes to confront said brown-noser about it. (in other words,don't spend my tax dollars revising a map while telling me this is the product of all your hard work clearing up "confusion"....then not have the nuts to simply stand up against those simply trying to confuse the issue further).

 

So Ok I may be a simpleton here, but why are you not upgrading the trails to the wider specification so they can be used by both groups? It seems to me, that the trails would be safer for all concerned, and they would have a higher usage rate too. Safety is a good thing.. and less damage would result because all wheels would be on the trail.

Unless of course, some groups would rather act like the child who gets mad and takes their ball and runs home... It seems to me that there is more power in a larger combined voice...

The problem is that there really should be only one standard for both... and elitism should go by the wayside. If the DNR had any common sense, they would mandate that and eliminate this argument once and for all... I am sure it would make their life a whole lot easier...

 

You are one confused individual. I don't know what Rondo's maps look like in the publication Off Road Ventures is putting out. I thought they were exact copies of the DNR maps, but I only glanced through it at the Honda shop. If you say they are not the same maps, fine. Don't care what his mapbook looks like or what he put in there. I have nothing to do with his organization.

I have the DNR's map for Tomahawk from February of 1999. Also have the one from May of 05, which you posted a link to and is currently available on the DNR's site. What's changed between the maps the DNR is publishing? Language used to describe the trail has changed:
Was "ORV TRAIL - for ORV's less than 50" in width - off road motorcycles and/or ATVs"
Now "ORV TRAIL - for ORV's less than 50" in width - off road motorcycles"

That's the official map, the one published by the DNR. If you have a problem with the map some other group is publishing, don't make some conspiracy up and drag unrelated groups into it, take your problem to the person/entity publishing that un-official map.

Now which map do you have that indicates what it is maintained to? The one you claim has "MAINTAINED AS A MOTORCYCLE TRAIL" on it? Is this the DNR's map and if so, what's the publish date on it? Can you post it on the web somewhere so we can all see it?

 

We may be splitting hairs on symantics, but I would read that this way...... ORV under 50 inches... would include ATV's.... again, I would also assume the trail to be built to the 50 inch standard. At that width, I would have no problems with my ATV. If it isn't maintained at the 50 inch standard, that is where the problems would start I imagine...

The off road motorcycle designation would be used to keep street bikes off of the trails.. but would include dual sport models since they are designed for off road...

Does that sound reasonable? I don't see where it would exclude ATVs at all....

 

Who pays for the upgrading work to widen the trails, who does the work? These are the first questions that have not been answered by those who've posed such questions before you.

Wider trails equals faster speeds, faster speeds equals unsafe conditions, thus wider does not always equal safer.

 

Absolutely correct.

The legal definition of ORV Trail "open to all ORVs less than 50" in width", but there are two specs for those trails: One is 24" on the ground and 40" at the handlebars, second is 50" on the ground and 50" on up.

It's not a designation, but a recommendation or suggestion on what may be suited for travel on this trail. Does not preclude ATVs on that trail, nor street licensed cycles.

 

Not sure I agree higher speeds would result with a 50 inch width for all concerned.... Take the average 4x4 ATV which is really pushing that 50 inch limit to begin with... I doubt it would affect it at all. And as for two wheeled traffic, with the bar widths you see these days, I am not sure it would have that much affect.... It might keep tree branches from grabbing your bars out of your hands... so I still think they would be a welcomed requirement... plus, the DNR, or any authority could realize a significant cost savings because they only would have to build and maintain one standard trail system for both ATV's and 2 wheelers. I can't see where that would be a bad thing. Plus now you have a much bigger voice...

As for money to pay for it.. .I think it would be the same sources you are using now for building trails, or paying for maintenence... Didn't I read somewhere in this thread something about contract maintenence for trails? If that was correct, I think it is nothing more than a specification that they would have to build/maintian too.

Also, isn't this what clubs and focus groups like the advisory board are for? To FOSTER cooperation, to help spend limited funds in the most cost effective way, and meet the needs of all the various user groups? If not then it should be their charter... Much of their efforts should be in helping different riding clubs/volunteer groups organize their efforts, and they should be the liaison between the people with the purse strings and the volunteers doing the work. This also assumes the two class of riders would have to settle their differences and get on the same track. If I were the DNR, I'd tell both groups to get on teh same path or get lost. Which is what they want anyway...

This is where the most benefit could be done in regards to trail improvements and guidance... In short leadership....