Routes Wanted

taywood said:

We had a recent post from a guy who wanted our Routes for his
new web page for UK Routes.
How do you guys feel about this.

I asked him why and what his aims were but didnt get a response.
My feelings are that if I pick a route from a magazine, guide book,
tourist office or even a club web page, then I know its safe and
that others have ridden it.
I wouldnt have that guarantee if I chose from an individuals page
knowing that morons could have fed him a ficticious route out of
malice and that it may not have been ridden.

Two years ago I rode a 'family' route from a now defunct UK mag
in an area of English Lakeland which I thought I knew well.
When I had to carry up the side of a tumbling waterfall it was clear
I was on a climbers path to the crags not a bikers route.
The writer had not ridden it and noone had done a risk assessment
on it before publishing.
The other side of the stream was a forest with a rideable forest

track

Quoted message said:

going steeply uphill and meeting at the same point at the pass but

the

Quoted message said:

magazine editor wouldnt change his published route.
Mike

Every time I look at mtbr trail reviews of a trail I have ridden, it
makes me cringe. If somene wants to make an accurate website, then
they had better get to riding. Even if the webmaster is a bit of a
barney (as is the case with the socamtbr.com dude), you can pretty much
gauge what a route will be like from their point of view, which usually
remains true to their level of experience.

On the other hand, some doofi in GJ wrote (poached, etc) a guide book
without riding the routes, or even walking them. It was obvious that
they had not done so in that some of the trail ratings of "moderate"
were attached to routes that only advanced riders should be on. I
would think that even with a disclaimer, irresponsibility of this
magnitude could be a civil liability.

JD