WODC Outlook, May 2009

[Jason Berard]

I can't speak to the Ossipees, as I've never hiked there, and don't know any of the people involved directly, but I am aware of an analogous case.

There is a large private parcel of land in New Hampshire that the owner is kind enough to allow recreation on. People can hike, hunt, fish, mountain bike, ski, and snowmobile on his land. There are 80 miles of trails, that he maintains, at his own expense for this purpose on his land. The only thing he asks, is that no map be made of the property, and that the location is not to be revealed on the internet. The main reason for this is that he wouldn't be able to sustain the trails, good relations with neighbors, etc, if the usage increased beyond what word of mouth provides. His neighbors already get cranky about too many cars on the road.
The bottom line is freely available maps increase usage, and some landowners are uneasy about this. I have no idea whether this map directly caused the landowner in this case to post their land...they may have wanted to do so anyway, and are using this as justification. The bottom line is, it is their right to do so.

Even along the Appalachian Trail, where there are easements to protect the trail as it travels over private land, I make sure to let the owners know when I am going to be maintaining the surveyed easement boundary on their property, just as a courtesy. I don't have to, but it just seems like to right thing to do.

 

[rocket21]

Great post, Jason.

Issue 1: trails have been cut/maintained

Issue 1 is also a no-brainer. It's illegal unless specifically sanctioned by the landowner.

The only trail in the entire Northern Ossipees depicted on the printed version of the map is the Larcom Trail. The trail was likely cut perhaps before our grandparents were born. I have no clue who maintains this trail, but I can say that I haven't, and the Trail Bandit has said he hasn't either. The trail markings are very old (faint blazes, axe blazes, old wooden signs). Certainly any maintenance of this trail predates the Trail Bandit map by many years.

 

[chomp]

Other than that, only woods/logging roads are depicted in the Northern Ossipees on the map (as well as natural features such as brooks, contours, etc.). This is not new. If the Trail Bandit map is to be faulted for showing logging roads, then the USGS, DeLorme, Ossipee Map at the Gilford Library, National Geographic, and others shouldn't be excluded either.

I really didn't want to spend this much time on this whole issue, but that statement is incorrect. Included below are two images, one from the USGS Topo and one from the TB Map. As you can see, the TB map depicts logging roads that are NOT on the USGS Topo. I can't speak to the other sources that are mentioned.

 

[rocket21]

I really didn't want to spend this much time on this whole issue, but that statement is incorrect. Included below are two images, one from the USGS Topo and one from the TB Map. As you can see, the TB map depicts logging roads that are NOT on the USGS Topo. I can't speak to the other sources that are mentioned.

Please note that I listed a number of maps. If you were to overlay Delorme, Nat Geo, Gilford Ossipee, and various USGS (15 and 7.5 min, various years), I believe you will find many of the logging roads are indeed represented.

If you do a search back to when the Trail Bandit sought the feedback of VFTT members on the map, you will find that folks requested more old roads be depicted on the map. I don't believe there were any objections for any members at that point.

For me personally, I don't find logging roads overly interesting and thus have hiked very few of them (none of them in the area in question). That said, from personal experience, I can think of at least one instance in which the inclusion of logging roads helped me out of a potentially dangerous situation.

I was hiking the Sentinel Mountain Trail awhile back and found myself 'trapped' by a baby bear (in other words, I didn't know where mama was, but it wasn't the best idea to proceed down the trail or try to bushwhack and thus perhaps find mama). Fortunately, I had the map with me and was able to quickly locate a nearby logging road, which lead me back to my vehicle and out of a potentially dangerous situation.

 

[chomp]

The only thing he asks, is that no map be made of the property, and that the location is not to be revealed on the internet. The main reason for this is that he wouldn't be able to sustain the trails, good relations with neighbors, etc, if the usage increased beyond what word of mouth provides.

...

The bottom line is freely available maps increase usage, and some landowners are uneasy about this.

Great post. Doing anything that makes landowners uneasy can cause problems, even if its "ok" to do.

And the AMC agrees with this logic. They officially closed the Mt Cabot Trail because of a landowner dispute. Even though the landowner at the end of the road is cool with the trail, and even though there is an easement for the trail through the property of the landowner with the issue, the AMC made the decision to close access to the trail.

 

[rocket21]

To clarify for folks who don't have the time to look at the map/listing of trails/etc., here's a a quick screenscrape of the map:

I have greyed out the Southern Ossipees, as at this time, I have not heard of any of the trails being questioned.

The northern half of the map has exactly two trails displayed. Green segments are sections of trail that are protected:
- Bayle Mountain Trail - Federally protected in 2002.
- Larcom Trail - LRCT partially protected in 1999.

The red segments show the sections of trail that are posted No Trespassing.

Note that, other than those tiny red and green highlighted areas, there are no other trails on the entire northern half of the map.


I'm not sure how much more I can add to this discussion, but if anything is unclear or seems inaccurate, please feel free to post or PM me.

 

[chomp]

If you do a search back to when the Trail Bandit sought the feedback of VFTT members on the map, you will find that folks requested more old roads be depicted on the map. I don't believe there were any objections for any members at that point.

Since I'm a narcissist, I'm going to quote myself:

My issue isn't with the creation of the map. Heck, I really have no interest in hiking that range but I thought it was a cool looking map when it came out. My issue is with defending it. Obviously you didn't intend to upset landowners - but you [trail bandit] did.

Maybe nobody had a problem with the map when it came out. But they do have a problem with it now. Let me ask again - what is going to be accomplished by defending this map? What do you hope to accomplish by fighting for the right to keep logging roads on private lands on the map? What does it matter if these roads are on other maps?

This brings up another good question- if DeLorme published a private trail on map - say a trail that you hike all of the time. And that publishing lead to the closing of that trail - what would you say?

I have no interest in this area, and I've never hiked the Larcom Trail, but I do have several trails in southern NH that I hike that are on private land. And I'd be very upset if something similar happened to them.

 

[Trail Bandit]

Again, MrChomp, Your post originally seemed to say that the Larcom issue was due in part to illegal clearing. To my knowledge, that is not true. Since it has been proposed that this discussion is about two separate issues, the map and illegal clearing, perhaps this thread should stick to the issue of the map. Go start another thread about illegal clearing. At this point, I think it would have been better if I had tried harder to contact the Larcomb Landowners. I did send a certified letter to the address on the property tax records, and they signed for it. I asked what was their position on hikers using their land. They didn't respond. Note, at that time, the land was "posted, no hunting with bear dogs". If I am hiking and see a boundary marked like that, I sort of assume that hiking and hunting (without dogs) is permitted. I perhaps should have asked their feelings about showing the trail on a map.

 

[chomp]

The red segments show the sections of trail that are posted No Trespassing.

Note that, other than those tiny red and green highlighted areas, there are no other trails on the entire northern half of the map.

There are miles of logging roads that are shown in the northern part of the map (your unshaded portion), and not just in the area of Larcom Mtn. Virtually none of these logging roads appear in the the USGS topo maps of the area.

 

[rocket21]

Maybe nobody had a problem with the map when it came out. But they do have a problem with it now. Let me ask again - what is going to be accomplished by defending this map? What do you hope to accomplish by fighting for the right to keep logging roads on private lands on the map? What does it matter if these roads are on other maps?

I believe the map provides a great service to many parties, including hikers as well as search and rescue operations (there aren't too many of those in the Ossipees, but there have been some in recent years). I consider the map to be similar to open source software - the Trail Bandit has offered it for free online and has been receptive to providing information/data/tracks that it was built upon. Printed versions are available at what I believe is cost (correct me if I'm wrong) - for a full color, tearproof/waterproof large size map, $5 including seems actually less than cost based upon the publishing I've done in the past.

This brings up another good question- if DeLorme published a private trail on map - say a trail that you hike all of the time. And that publishing lead to the closing of that trail - what would you say?

I wouldn't blame DeLorme for that (and I'm unsure if it was the publication of the trail (not displayed on the Trail Bandit map) in DeLorme that led to the posting). I wouldn't be happy with the hypothetical hikers who would have presumably led to the closing of the trail due to illegal littering/camping/etc. - can't blame DeLorme for that. Regardless, if the trail was on private property and wasn't a legal right of way or protected with tax dollars/tax breaks, then I would support the right of the landowner to post their property.

I have no interest in this area, and I've never hiked the Larcom Trail, but I do have several trails in southern NH that I hike that are on private land. And I'd be very upset if something similar happened to them.

There are many trails in various guidebooks on private property - certainly guidebooks/maps can't be blamed for the actions of folks ruining trails. If anything, one could argue that, by publishing a trail, more responsible hikers will hike it and keep it clean. I have found that, in my travels to unpublished peaks (such as Wiggin, Province, Negus, etc.), there is a heck of a lot more litter and evidence of partying/camping/bon fires than on trails that are published in guides.

 

[rocket21]

There are miles of logging roads that are shown in the northern part of the map (your unshaded portion), and not just in the area of Larcom Mtn. Virtually none of these logging roads appear in the the USGS topo maps of the area.

As stated before, I'm personally concerned with trails, not logging roads.

I don't have time to put together an overlay of all available maps, but if you search beyond just the 1987 7.5 minute map, you'll find many more of the logging roads. The 15 minute map, for instance, shows logging roads not displayed on the 7.5 minute. Older USGS maps show additional roads/trails, as do the Nat Geo and DeLorme.

 

[chomp]

Again, MrChomp, Your post originally seemed to say that the Larcom issue was due in part to illegal clearing. To my knowledge, that is not true. Since it has been proposed that this discussion is about two separate issues, the map and illegal clearing, perhaps this thread should stick to the issue of the map. Go start another thread about illegal clearing. At this point, I think it would have been better if I had tried harder to contact the Larcomb Landowners. I did send a certified letter to the address on the property tax records, and they signed for it. I asked what was their position on hikers using their land. They didn't respond. Note, at that time, the land was "posted, no hunting with bear dogs". If I am hiking and see a boundary marked like that, I sort of assume that hiking and hunting (without dogs) is permitted. I perhaps should have asked their feelings about showing the trail on a map.

Where is this illegal clearing thing coming from? I'll repeat myself again - my issue is with defending this map. Let me quote myself again, from my very first post in this thread:

Those in favor of this map have certainly provided compelling evidence that they have the right to do so; that is creating, promoting, posting, etc... this map is perfectly ok. And it might be. But in the process, landowners have been offended and banded together to ban access.

As for your assumptions, the only thing I'll say about that is that there is a very big difference between assuming that its OK to hike a trail on private property and assuming that its OK to publicly publish a trail on private property. I get everything that happened up to this point, but what I don't get is your continued arrogance over this issue. Obviously, you made a mistake, and honestly one that I could have made myself.

But if I was in your position, I would have pulled all the maps off of the internet, offered an apology to the people that I offended, and sent an apology to the landowners that I offended. And if you think this is crap, well, I actually have been in a very similar position (though nothing to do with maps) and I did take all of those steps. I ate a lot of crow as it were. I don't see you offering to do the same, and that's disappointing.

 

[chomp]

I don't have time to put together an overlay of all available maps, but if you search beyond just the 1987 7.5 minute map, you'll find many more of the logging roads.

And why do you think that these logging roads were removed from more recent maps? Perhaps because the landowners requested they be removed?

 

[rocket21]

And why do you think that these logging roads were removed from more recent maps? Perhaps because the landowners requested they be removed?

I'll have to defer to someone who more knowledge on how the USGS maps are generated, as well as why there may be variances between the 15 and 7.5 minute maps. There certainly isn't a 'destroy when new version released' message on any of the USGS maps. Nonetheless, the roads have been depicted. It is up to the individual to obey No Trespassing signs.

As stated before, when feedback was sought on the map on VFTT, there were requests for *more* old logging roads. I don't believe anyone asked for them to be removed.

I believe the copies of the Nat Geo and DeLorme I've seen are the most recent. Again, those also show things in the region in question.

 

[chomp]

There certainly isn't a 'destroy when new version released' message on any of the USGS maps.

No there isn't. But as the AMC closed access to the Mt Cabot Trail to maintain good relations with ALL private landowners, perhaps the USGS removed the logging roads to do the same.

If a landowner is not happy with features that are on a publicity available map, IMO, these features should be removed. I'll ask you again, what is the BEST case scenario for keeping them on the map? We've seen worst case already.

 

[--M.]

Wait a minute, everybody.

What? What was that, Trail Bandit?

I perhaps should have asked their feelings about showing the trail on a map.

This is imo tantamount to admitting that negative consent does not equal positive consent and that there is a difference between "right" and "realistic." Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume that Trail Bandit agrees.

I'd bet things could be amended.

 

[rocket21]

I'll ask you again, what is the BEST case scenario for keeping them on the map?

Keeping them on a map that I didn't make and didn't pay to print isn't my decision. They're on the copy I own and I have no intention of using white out to remove them.

 

[MarkJ]

I noticed on the Tr Bandit map the parking spot for Larcom at the orchard near the shack is not marked P for parking.I read 4 trip reports on a Franklinsite with a map showing a blue P for parking at that spot.If I was the landowner and noticed part of my property was labelled as P for parking online,I'd be pissed.

 

[buckyball1]

wow--long since time to end/lock this thread?--nothing positive here and just hurting parties on all sides

jim

 

[chomp]

Keeping them on a map that I didn't make and didn't pay to print isn't my decision. They're on the copy I own and I have no intention of using white out to remove them.

Its not your decision and its not your map, but you have been aggressively defending their inclusion for several posts. I'm stating they should be removed as a show of good faith to the landowners. You have been stating they should be included on the map because they are included on other maps.

And for the record, I'm looking at the latest New Hampshire DeLorme map, and there are some logging roads listed, but not nearly as many as on the TB map. I've yet to see another map source with the same number of logging roads in the same detail.