(06-09-2022, 03:45 PM)jwilliamson Wrote: The idea that we should have a fairly shallow maximum grade for trails seems crazy to me. Sometimes there are destinations at the top and bottom of a hill that ought to be connected by trail. If you don't allow a trail going straight up the hill, then either there won't be a trail at all, the trail will follow a roundabout and confusing route, or enough land would need to be expropriated to build a switchback trail (i.e. there will be no trail).
That is actually a really good point. Sometimes the perfect, in the form of a requirement, is the enemy of the good.
I think my suggestion would be that there should be “normal” trails which are built to a standard and don’t need special signage, and other trails that are built in whatever way is feasible and which are signed as such so people can make an informed decision whether or not to use them.
This has to include that some trails will be built which are not accessible. It would be absurd to deny hikers access to a lookout, for example, just because it’s not feasible to build the connection to accessible standards.
On the other hand, when a real transportation route is built, we should put in significant effort to build it to the standard, just as we do when building roads for cars. And similarly, routes that actually go somewhere rather than just accessing specific points of interest should generally be useable by people of varying levels of mobility. This doesn’t mean absolutely all the time but whenever it’s even slightly feasible.