Clackamas River Trail# 564?

[Guy]

So I'm guessing this trail shown & labeled 564 begining at Armstrong Camp is no longer there is this correct? Shown on the Map below but I can find no reference to it.

https://caltopo.com/m/M0R4

Thanks

[RobFromRedland]

That trail never existed. 564 is the Rho Ridge trail number. This trail was part of some "plan" way back when (70's? 80's?) that never happened. Too bad - the route looks really interesting. But it persisted on maps for quite some time even though it was never more than an idea.

[Guy]

That trail never existed. 564 is the Rho Ridge trail number. This trail was part of some "plan" way back when (70's? 80's?) that never happened. Too bad - the route looks really interesting. But it persisted on maps for quite some time even though it was never more than an idea.

Thanks RobFromRedland, fugured it had to have been lost or never built!

Like you say a shame, walking Fish Creek to Pup Falls Yesterday for the first time was a pleasant surprise.

[Splintercat]

The same phantom trail shows up above Indian Henry to the Umpqua Quarry (near the Collowash confluence). It would have made for a really nice river trek!

Tom

[justpeachy]

This trail was part of some "plan" way back when (70's? 80's?) that never happened.

Why does it show up on the map if it was never built? I don't know what the process is in making these maps, but it seems to me they wouldn't put a road or trail on the map until AFTER it was constructed, yes?

[RobFromRedland]

Why does it show up on the map if it was never built? I don't know what the process is in making these maps, but it seems to me they wouldn't put a road or trail on the map until AFTER it was constructed, yes?

I don't have an answer for that, I just know that it was some sort of plan that never panned out. Why it got put on a map I'll never understand.

Here is a quote from an old posting on trailadvocate.org (dated 2008):

What you are seeing there was a fantasy trail that was part of Urban Link, a project that mostly funded consultants and bureaucrats and achieved little to nothing. The idea was to have trail from the urban area up to the PCT. Rho Ridge was part of the plan. Hence the trail number. When the map data was being prepared, there must have been a high level of optimism. The District map remains the most accurate resource, in spite of it's omissions. New data is being submitted to correct many of the trail errors
for the next edition. You will notice that the phantom trail is not on the2002 District map.

[Chip Down]

This trail was part of some "plan" way back when (70's? 80's?) that never happened.

Why does it show up on the map if it was never built? I don't know what the process is in making these maps, but it seems to me they wouldn't put a road or trail on the map until AFTER it was constructed, yes?

Of course! Usually we look back on these things and wonder "what were they thinking". But more recently, I saw a Nat Geo map of Mt Hood that showed a proposed/planned alteration. Nat Geo showed it as if it represented current reality. That bothered me. Seems like they should have had an inset or something, showing how things might look in the future. Seemed irresponsible to me that they accepted the USFS plans as reality. Not the first time I've been disappointed by Nat Geo in the last decade. They seem determined to slide into irrelevance, with all the authoritative credibility of USA Today.

[Guy]

Again thanks all,

Nutty how it got on the Map before it was built but we all know how long things last once they get on a map!

Shame it's not there, lovely country with easy access.

[Webfoot]

Maybe a group of you should get together and "restore" this trail. After all it's on the map.