06-09-2022, 07:07 PM
(06-09-2022, 06:17 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: 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.
There are trail classification systems in various parts of the world. Switzerland and NZ have them. Ontario was working on one, but it's not finished as far as I know.
Switzerland: https://www.bergfreunde.eu/alpine-grades-calculator/
NZ: https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recrea...ategories/
So, yes, if you are designing a transportation route, it should meet standards for transportation. If you're designing a hiking trail, it should meet those standards. Hiking trails shouldn't be paved (though they may need switchbacks in some terrain for erosion control reasons). Transportation routes probably should be paved.
Oh, and, "no winter maintenance" signs. I'm not a great fan of those. But sure.