why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 3037
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by Chip Down » June 20th, 2021, 9:33 am

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?

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by BigBear » June 20th, 2021, 11:27 am

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.

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by Aimless » June 20th, 2021, 12:28 pm

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.

User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 3037
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by Chip Down » June 20th, 2021, 2:49 pm

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.
Attachments
aaaaaaa.JPG

User avatar
bobcat
Posts: 2764
Joined: August 1st, 2011, 7:51 am
Location: SW Portland

Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by bobcat » June 20th, 2021, 3:37 pm

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.

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1834
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Milwaukie

Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by Charley » June 20th, 2021, 4:03 pm

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.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

User avatar
Waffle Stomper
Posts: 3707
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by Waffle Stomper » June 20th, 2021, 4:39 pm

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

User avatar
bobcat
Posts: 2764
Joined: August 1st, 2011, 7:51 am
Location: SW Portland

Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by bobcat » June 20th, 2021, 5:21 pm

Waffle Stomper wrote:
June 20th, 2021, 4:39 pm
Do trail engineers design to the lowest common demotivator?
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.

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by Aimless » June 21st, 2021, 9:09 am

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.

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: why do trail engineers avoid ridgecrests?

Post by drm » June 22nd, 2021, 6:13 am

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.

Post Reply