Good news I argued with the DNR today!

[duckboy]

The whole point wasn't about changing the pictures in the corner. It was about the words and inches in the blue(that you hi-lighted) and the picture in the triangle for those of us who do more than look at pictures on maps.

Also if this is the legal definition of all trails, why aren't they all cut to 50" and all able to be used by quads 50" or less? This proof of anything but a lack of consistentcy on the dnr's part which just adds to confusion.

Taken from http://www.state.mi.us/orr/emi/admincode.asp?AdminCode=Single&Admin_Num=29900921&Dpt=NR&RngHigh=
(g) "Designated trail" means a 1-track path or way which is capable of
travel by a 2- to 4-wheel vehicle that is less than 50 inches in width and
which has been properly signed on the ground for ORV use.

We should be able to trust these maps and not have to guess and try or luck.

 

[2TrakR]

And the problem with the words is that they are accurate and do define the trail. That definition does not say a 49" vehicle can traverse the trail, it says a vehicle less than 50" is capable of traversing the trail. Most people read that and assume it means all trails meet the maximum width (50") which is not what it says nor is it what's on the ground. That 49" vehicle may be able to ride the trail; you may need a 40" vehicle. The only item on the map which tells you what may be better suited for the trail is the picture in the lower right, like I circled above. Just a bike, then the trail is best suited for a bike. Bike plus ATV means either is good to go on the trail. I've not found this system to be inaccurate or mis-leading if you know what it means to begin with.

As for what's on the triangle that's actually on the ground, I was just on parts of the Bull Gap system this past weekend and there were "ORV Trail" triangles with pictures of cycles on ORV Routes. There were also large signs on the Routes that said "Designated ORV Route".
Point is that you can't take what the triangle's picture indicates as proof of what the trail is for. Alas, this is a really bad example as that Route should be signed with ORV Route triangles period.

 

[ellandoh]

anybody here goes on a trail and make plans on 50" 40" xx" etc. and are surprised at their findings, then they deserve to :bang:

http://www.dirtrider.net/forums3/showthread.php?t=116229
look here, i even know which side of the puddle to avoid and around which corner its behind ,heck i could get GPS coordinates of the puddle if i try hard enough. anyone who plans on a certain trail and cant trust or read a map ........call the nearest dnr to that trail if its a big deal , better yet join the MCCCT or DRN and you will find what ur seeking. unless youre getting DNR online maps youre lucky to get one on location anyway

 

[duckboy]

And the problem with the words is that they are accurate and do define the trail. That definition does not say a 49" vehicle can traverse the trail, it says a vehicle less than 50" is capable of traversing the trail. Most people read that and assume it means all trails meet the maximum width (50") which is not what it says nor is it what's on the ground. That 49" vehicle may be able to ride the trail; you may need a 40" vehicle.

Anyone who's past fourth grade math knows that 50" or less means equal to or less than 50". Which means a vehicle equal to 50" can use the trail. Paragraph g (http://www.state.mi.us/orr/emi/admincode.asp?AdminCode=Single&Admin_Num=29900921&Dpt=NR&RngHigh=) doesn't say or as the maps do but it still means that a 49" vehicle can use the trail. Anyone stating differently is just trying to avoid legal issues or needs to learn the definition of less. With paragraph g being so inconsistent with the maps any ticket for going around a tree would never hold up in court.

Point is that you can't take what the triangle's picture indicates as proof of what the trail is for.

This is exactly why the maps need to be corrected. :cool:

 

[2TrakR]

Of course the easiest solution to your original issue was to join the CCC and use their Trail Directory which not only lists contact info for each trail but it's difficulty rating, maintained width and terrain type. This info is now on the CCC website in the members section.

 

[YZMAN400]

Wow... I just read thru this entire thing..... There is 15 minutes of my life I will never get back.... :)


Not to slam anyone but this is starting to sound like a The_Bottom_Line argument. I half expect him to pop his head in here and start in again :pissed:

:nener:

I can kind of see Duckboys argument on the Evart trail map. The picture shows a bike but the description says 50" or less which means quads can travel on it.

Is Evart a 50" trail or 40" trail?

If its 50" trail then I think the picture should look more like the Gladwin one with both quads and bikes in the picture. If Evart is indead for bikes only (as the picture shows) then shouldnt the 50" or less actually read 40" or less?

I realize that there is no bikes or quads in the DNR's eyes, they are ORV's. But in the real world bikes and quads is what it boils down to.

I