TheDoctor said:That's not even a farcility. I can't think of any reason why I'd ever ride there, unless I suddenly developed some kind of mud fetish.
If it's ideal for horses as is, why not just leave it that way?
wafflycat said:Quite. It's suitable forMTBsducks and that's it.
It already looks a pretty good surface to me, much better than some of the stuff I ride at the moment.equicyclist said:This is an old mineral railway line with a drainage canal along part of its length. The surface is compressed stone but it is a bit softer in places where there is silt on top but I feel could be easily improved without tarmac.
TheDoctor said:That's not even a farcility. I can't think of any reason why I'd ever ride there, unless I suddenly developed some kind of mud fetish.
If it's ideal for horses as is, why not just leave it that way?
From the pictures, this line looks similar to the route that runs from Scarborough to Whitby. It was certainly rideable when I did it in late autumn. However I did use it in the middle of a dry spell so I'm not sure what the surface would be like after prolonged wet weather.equicyclist said:This is an old mineral railway line with a drainage canal along part of its length. The surface is compressed stone but it is a bit softer in places where there is silt on top but I feel could be easily improved without tarmac. I would appreciate your views. Its currently used by cyclists and walkers but more, I think by riders. The planning application initially states shared space/footpath but with only a small section for horse riders and the path is due to be tarmaced. It is wetter at one end which will need more attention but I think this is a nice natural surface which wouldnt cost much to improve.
equicyclist said:What do you think of the barriers that are supposed to stop motorbikes? Does anyone have trouble getting a bike through and have you witnessed any problems with prams etc?
wafflycat said:Quite. It's suitable for MTBs and that's it.
Picking up this one again, with the idea of barriers to stop motorised access, I went into town with my daughter on Sunday. We went in through the park, which requires the use of the 2 barriers I mention above. My daughter said that she disliked them so much that she'd rather come home on the road than use the parkland route, just because of those gates.Norm said:Not happy with being "required to" dismount, though. That would just make it a no-go for me. There's an off-road run for me to my local town with gates at either end requiring a dismount, I just don't go that way. I'd rather cycle on the dual cabbageway for 1/2 mile than stop and fight through kissing gates which are about 2" too short for my bike and only slow down cyclists for a few feet either side of them anyway.
That's just poor design.Norm said:Picking up this one again, with the idea of barriers to stop motorised access, I went into town with my daughter on Sunday. We went in through the park, which requires the use of the 2 barriers I mention above. My daughter said that she disliked them so much that she'd rather come home on the road than use the parkland route, just because of those gates.
equicyclist said:What do you think of the barriers that are supposed to stop motorbikes? Does anyone have trouble getting a bike through and have you witnessed any problems with prams etc?
Danny said:That's just poor design.
There are plenty of barrier designs that will prevent motor bikes or cars getting onto a cycle route, but still allow bikes to pass through easily. I go through one practically every day on my way to the station.