There are so many benefits to ridgecrest trails:
Snow melts out earlier in the season.
Easy to follow if they haven't been maintained well; hikers have less chance of losing the trail.
Better views.
The fun of following a natural feature (this is subjective, of course).
Natural drainage.
etc.
Why do trailbuilders avoid ridgecrests?
why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
how about lightening?
The natural succession of trails were: game trails, hunter trails, equestrian trails, hiking trails, and unmaintained/decommissioned trails. Where the deer walked (usually not in the open), the hunter and camper followed.
The natural succession of trails were: game trails, hunter trails, equestrian trails, hiking trails, and unmaintained/decommissioned trails. Where the deer walked (usually not in the open), the hunter and camper followed.
Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
Trails usually start at or near the bottoms of ridges, near major watercourses, so they must ascend to reach ridge crests. Ridges usually rise abruptly and steeply from river bottoms. Engineers (and most hikers) prefer a smooth, evenly ascending gradient to a series of unpredictable ascents and descents of varying steepness. That's going to favor a lot of side hill traversing on the way up. Once your trail reaches the ridge crest there's no telling how many ups and downs it will impose on a trail that follows it.
As I recall, Chip doesn't like the Cast Creek trail very much, in part because it keeps losing and regaining elevation by following a humpy ridge crest.
As I recall, Chip doesn't like the Cast Creek trail very much, in part because it keeps losing and regaining elevation by following a humpy ridge crest.
Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
Aimless, you make a good point that following a ridgecrest often involves some ups and downs. I think it's well worth the price, but others will disagree.
I thought of a place that provides some illustrations. Map below shows (upper right) Nick Eaton trail ascending from Herman Creek. That's an example of a ridge ascending (roughly) perpendicular to a creek, and it's a terrible way to route a trail. But that's exactly what they did.
But let's look at the PCT up to Benson Plateau. PCT SB goes NE from Cascade Locks and Dry Creek, because terrain kinda forces it to. A ridge is gained (point A), but instead of following the ridge to Point B, the trail crosses over the ridge and meanders. Instead of views and meadows, we get a trail that looks like it was made for seniors on mountain bikes. It could be argued that the ridge from A to B is too rugged to support a trail. I'm not sure it is, but I think everybody would agree that the ridge from B to C is a great place to run a trail.
I thought of a place that provides some illustrations. Map below shows (upper right) Nick Eaton trail ascending from Herman Creek. That's an example of a ridge ascending (roughly) perpendicular to a creek, and it's a terrible way to route a trail. But that's exactly what they did.
But let's look at the PCT up to Benson Plateau. PCT SB goes NE from Cascade Locks and Dry Creek, because terrain kinda forces it to. A ridge is gained (point A), but instead of following the ridge to Point B, the trail crosses over the ridge and meanders. Instead of views and meadows, we get a trail that looks like it was made for seniors on mountain bikes. It could be argued that the ridge from A to B is too rugged to support a trail. I'm not sure it is, but I think everybody would agree that the ridge from B to C is a great place to run a trail.
Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
There are different grades of trails and they conform to mandated standards (the USFS has five grades, which doesn't even include unofficial trails like Ruckel Ridge).
The PCT is a horse grade trail, with the gentlest ascents and descents possible, which is why it meanders so much and perforce stays away from many great features (one reason I've never had the ambition to be a thru-hiker although it means thru-hikers can blast along at a pretty constant speed the whole way).
I just hiked a pretty standard ridge trail in the Coast Range (Cummins Ridge). The crest is rolling and the trail hits it a few times but most of the distance it is just below the crest avoiding all the little knolls and prominences to keep a more constant grade.
The PCT is a horse grade trail, with the gentlest ascents and descents possible, which is why it meanders so much and perforce stays away from many great features (one reason I've never had the ambition to be a thru-hiker although it means thru-hikers can blast along at a pretty constant speed the whole way).
I just hiked a pretty standard ridge trail in the Coast Range (Cummins Ridge). The crest is rolling and the trail hits it a few times but most of the distance it is just below the crest avoiding all the little knolls and prominences to keep a more constant grade.
Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
I'm a huge fan of actual ridgecrest walking/hiking/scrambling. I have a mental list of "great ridge hikes" in our region, and the fact that it's only possible to have a handful of good ones like this is evidence of their rarity. Hint- a lot of them are in Eastern Oregon.
I'll add another reason most trail builders avoid them- they're not very good for finding water. As someone pointed out earlier, there's a long history of horse and mule stock on the trail, and getting those animals to water regularly seems like another nail in the coffin of all the lost opportunities for great ridge walks.
I'll add another reason most trail builders avoid them- they're not very good for finding water. As someone pointed out earlier, there's a long history of horse and mule stock on the trail, and getting those animals to water regularly seems like another nail in the coffin of all the lost opportunities for great ridge walks.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.
- Waffle Stomper
- Posts: 3707
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
Do trail engineers design to the lowest common demotivator? What might seem fine for an advanced hiker may not be so for an intermediate hiker.
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." - John Muir
Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
Yes, precisely. But the Gorge is not a good example for the perceived lack of ridge trails. There are several around Mount Hood - Vista Ridge, Elk Cove Ridge, Polallie Ridge, Blue Grass Ridge, Boy Scout Ridge, etc. Trail builders like to put trails on ridges for all the reasons Chip mentioned. However, they also have to try and maintain a 10% or lower grade (to keep erosion at bay), which leaves out many rugged ridges in the Gorge.Waffle Stomper wrote: ↑June 20th, 2021, 4:39 pmDo trail engineers design to the lowest common demotivator?
Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
There's also the factor of rocky outcroppings and minor cliffs that are impossible to build a trail across and must be avoided. These occur more often along ridge lines than on side hills, because the top of a ridge is usually where the hardest strata are exposed which have resisted erosion the longest.
Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?
Priorities vary. Some trails are built to certain standards, say for horses. Newer trails are usually designed to avoid erosion and to minimize maintenance. Broad ridges offer easy terrain for trail-builders/maintainers. Narrow rocky ridges don't.
Nick Eaton follows a ridge, PCT south of Benson follows a ridge. Lots of trails follow ridges, lots don't. I don't see that trail builders in general avoid ridgecrests, though there are certain trails that did. And the concept of the best design has changed over the years too.
And some trails were originally not "designed", they were created by people getting from Point A to Point B - a pasture, a mine, a great berry-picking area, their cabin. A few were adapted from ancient Native American routes.
Nick Eaton follows a ridge, PCT south of Benson follows a ridge. Lots of trails follow ridges, lots don't. I don't see that trail builders in general avoid ridgecrests, though there are certain trails that did. And the concept of the best design has changed over the years too.
And some trails were originally not "designed", they were created by people getting from Point A to Point B - a pasture, a mine, a great berry-picking area, their cabin. A few were adapted from ancient Native American routes.