so you think the reroute "fossil ridge" is just a dirt path? You do know that the trail along the loop road is still there for you to climb and descent at free will, right?! So you are saying that you prefer 300 feet of tech next to a road compared to the opportunity to build a mile long addition at Greensfelder?
A berm on that turn would be great and it could even accommodate the rocks with a slight alteration. We can berm the heck out of everything BUT it's a multi-use horse park and we haven't even had a wet enough winter to see what an 'average' winter + equestrians hoof damage would do to the berms. I like berms too but it's easy to get caught up building them and forget about maintaining them.
I keep saying / begging -- if there's enough people that want a flow trail WHY doesn't a group of solid, hard-working, visionary-types get together and form a facebook group, WRITE a solid proposal and then PRESENT it to a land agency.
It's easier to bag on the club that builds trails than to try and form a coalition with a singular vision of flow-oriented trails. I'd argue that STL could have another mtb club form to tackle the FLOW EQUATION. And trying to make "dedicated" flow trail work at Greensfelder seems nuts. It's the MOST HORSE PARK of open-to-horses parks. As soon as some hiking/biking land is available I say we SHOULD go FlowNuclear and build it out.
I think there's about 80 acres up by the airport that might be open for trail ideas but NO ONE WANTS TO DRIVE ANYWHERE (but they'll drive 4-6 hours to ride in Arkansas). And that's land that might be primed to build on given the right opportunity or pitch. Maybe Babler will allow something, I don't know.
"smooth paths" start smooth and will age with time. Look at Dogwood (that most people don't seem to ride anymore), it used to be chill dirt but now it's getting to be a rocky, root, slightly eroded trail.
Trails take time. Hell, Beulah is still considered BRAND NEW in trail years. Because it is. Same with Fossil Ridge. It's like, what, 2 years old or something?
Many people forget how trail building works so let's review:
1. The land manager suggests or asks for trail additions or changes
2. GORC gets to work
GORC was asked to get involved with Rock Hollow as a multi-use designed trail.
GORC was asked to reroute existing trails at Greensfelder that were highly eroded and unsustainable. I think we're doing a pretty good job based on the amount of cars jamming the parking lots.
GORC was asked by MDC to reroute a portion of Lost Valley where the gravel road was losing to the creek and also some of the existing singletrack. Not to mention MDC was closing the wooden bridge due to its deterioration and the trail on either side of the bridge. At first, they weren't sure about the reroute just below the bridge with the rocks and steep hillsides but it turned out ok and is pretty techy now.
GORC was asked to close two trails at SIUE due to the trails being outside of our initial lease agreement (a legal issue within SIUE's framework).
The club doesn't randomly go out and start changing up the trail. There's always a plan and the land agency is aware of the work. Modifying trails to be easier (tear out rocks or roots) or harder (add rocks or jumps) on your own personal time is not allowed by the land managers unless they approve it.
Our by-laws state we are a multi-use trail building club. We do not / can not advocate for a biking only trail but we are more than willing to build a biking or biking / hiking trail if the land manager states that it is their intended goal.
I don't mean to rant or sound angry but we are a volunteer organization working on a modest budget and I think we do a pretty good job without the millions in the bank.
Someone or some group prove me wrong and get to work and get some flow trail built in STL so I can go ride it.
Your new club can join IMBA and get some solid plans together to build at ...... <INSERT PUBLIC LAND SPACE NAME HERE >