Let's be clear from the beginning: runners have an absolute right to use national trails. However, the commercial venture outlined below, and supported by Natural England, is introducing an officially approved competitive element.
Trailblaze http://www.trail-blaze.com/ has installed a large number of obtrusive, permanent white boxes (as shown on the website, taken on the South Downs Way above Cuckmere Haven) along eight national trails, including the South Downs Way, The Ridgeway and Thames Path, so that runners can pay to register and log their times. The boxes are checkpoints to record runners' times, so that (after paying a fee of £20 one-off or £70 annual) they can compare their times with others and possibly win a prize.
This project has the support of Natural England, who manage the national trails, indeed they are providing financial support. Trailblaze will pay Natural England 20% of registration fees.
Here are some reasons why this is wrong:
- Trailblaze boxes are unsightly and out of place in the countryside, especially on national trails;
- It is commercialising the national trails and could lead to more of the same;
- The scheme is against the whole ethos of a quiet walk in the countryside;
- Runners can easily use their GPS for the same purpose (or indeed a wristwatch);
- Natural England means just that - the Trailblaze boxes are against everything Natural England stands for.
- It has the potential to cause conflict, and even danger, between groups of walkers and runners desperately anxious to overtake on narrow mountain and coastal paths in order to achieve a fast time.
-As far as I can ascertain, Natural England has carried out no consultation with interested parties such as the Ramblers and the Long Distance Walkers' Association and has been announced as a fait accompli although the scheme is to be reviewed after a year..
Take a look at the totally ridiculous promotional video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIBA1-krH-0
You might also like to take a look at http://www.trail-blaze.co.uk/. This website has been set up by some individual members of the Outdoor Writers and Photographers Guild who are very strongly against the Trailblaze scheme.
Hugh - Thanks for bringing this up. I have no view on this but have you been on any of the LDWA challenge events? They use footpaths on their challenge walks and if you are a slower walker you really don't need to follow the instructions to navigate the route. There is a great big wide trail where something like 200 walkers have gone through. If you don't want things like this going on then you can't justify LDWA challenge walks and other events using trails and footpaths. The boxes might be unsightly although looking at the one shown here doesn't look too bad. Its a discrete box on a post.
Have you thought about the people who might be interested in doing this who might never go to the areas of the trails? Cleveland trail is one. I have never even thought of going there but if I was a runner perhaps it might get me to it. If some of the trails are not well known this could drive increase interest. That means people going to an area and supporting local business, etc., etc., etc.
As I have looked further into this and thought about it as I type I have developed a view on it, I now think it is actually a good idea. Thanks for pointing it out. I might actually do a bit of it now. Sounds fun.
On the one hand - national trails are there for (and these are my words) bonafide walkers out for quiet enjoyment of the countryside
On the other
National trails are there as a resource for the country as a whole, to encourage non-participants to try walking in the countryside and to promote walking as a healthy hobby.
As a personal view...well, I dont have one on this initiative - but in general I am happier for organised and semi-organised events to happen in defined areas and in a defined way so I can choose to take part or not take part as I desire. This means - in principle - I have no objecton to this development and see positive advantages for participants and non-participants alike.
On another discussion forum, I made the point that those boxes, with their flame logos, and little round holes, look like something you're supposed to stub a cigarette out in... and the following day, someone posted a photo showing a cigarette stubbed out in one!
as a walker and a runner, i would say it (like evertything and everything) can work, if there are a few guidelines set out to help us all get along and enjoy our countryside and open spaces.
at first i was totally against this, as i do not see what it would give me as a runner
"Runners can easily use their GPS for the same purpose (or indeed a wristwatch)"
to me this has to be the ultimate reason why this scheme is a complete waste of time; why not run subscriptions to a website where we can enter our gps data if we wish? perhaps the site could contain all the usual information needed to promote the least visited areas, or even piggy back onto an already established site/forum like this?
then as i began to think about it, i couldn't really see what harm it would cause, in that, going back to the idea of having guidelines, if "-it has the potential to cause conflict, and even danger, between groups of walkers and runners desperately anxious to overtake on narrow mountain and coastal paths in order to achieve a fast time", then surely some simple rules and regulation, like we obey on the road, at sea, in the air and loads of other potentially dangerous and confusing places would see to it that we all stayed safe and maybe even enjoyed each others company?
any random object it always unwelcome and indeed "Trailblaze boxes are unsightly and out of place in the countryside, especially on national trails". However, there are not as unsightly as some other objects found (recently discussed in a thread by steve) that litter our country pathways. The point i am getting at is that anyone walking along our main routes already has much more to worry about than wooden boxes; check your soles before getting back into the car is my advice.
i haven't really structered my thought very well, they've all kind of come flooding out, but at the end of it all i guess i am still undecided as to whether it causes problems for walkers and/or runners.
i wonder if there was much hype created at some blasted group of people deciding to go around erecting over six thousand white lumps of concrete, arguably spoiling and scaring our countryside. we all love them today, even see them as historic and symbolic of our favourite places, but was it always this way, did walkers kick up a stink about it at the time. i know you know a fair bit about them paddy, any idea? i'm not saying outdoor enthusiasts of the future will look upon trailblaze boxes in the same light we do trig points, (ha ha, imagine that), but that in comparison to trigs (not to mention other unneccessary things we have no use for any more), are they really a sore thumb so to speak?
I guess you could apply the gps argument to trigs actually couldn't you? we now use a couple of sat systems (that i'm sure paddy or someone will remind me the names of) that map the whole of GB is no time at all, whatever the weather, so why not pull the (if we are truthful) ugly lumps of concrete, out of the ground. i am not saying we should, as i like the tangible history they provide (and have found myself by using them when navigating a few times).
i don't know i've kind of got of topic haven't i, never mind, just a running chain of thoughts as i typed away while trying not to watch those blooming soaps the women of the house seem to like.
After being almost knocked down by runners and mountain bikers in a hurry on narrow paths, I do feel that they are a little selfish in their attitude sometimes, not all the time.
Just for the record, I have been almost knocked over by an impatient mountain biker on a narrow pathway,coming down a hill,with asteep drop one side and quite a slope up the other. He didn't even have the courtesy to apologise or check I was ok.
Sadly, people like him, give the rest a bad name.....
There are some very courteous mountain bikers and runners out there.
I feel some routes need a lot more careful choice, especially with the damage that can be done when masses of people partake in their hobby, sometimes, unavoidably, moving off track to get past others.
Those who've walked Cairn Gorm (and other skiing areas) after the skiing season, must have noticed the flattened grass and other plants on the ski slopes!
It is similar to the arguement against Green Laning, but my view is, we all need to respect the countryside and there should be a place for everyone to enjoy and participate, safely in their hobby.
From the National Trails website it would appear that this sort of thing is likely to expand particularly when looked at in the light of government spending cuts. From the homepage; Business Ideas
We welcome innovative approaches from all sectors of business and are keen to explore opportunities for joint ventures with the private sector to develop new products and services.
So I wouldn't hold your breath on the outcome of a petition.
Those who've walked Cairn Gorm (and other skiing areas) after the skiing season, must have noticed the flattened grass and other plants on the ski slopes!
It is similar to the arguement against Green Laning, but my view is, we all need to respect the countryside and there should be a place for everyone to enjoy and participate, safely in their hobby.
I tend to the view that it depends on how much someone's hobby interferes with other people's hobbies.
Often green lanes are inappropriate for motor vehicles, regardless of their legal status.
When discussing "normal" road damage, the damage caused by vehicles increases dramatically with axle-weight, - I have seen claims of it increasing with the fourth power or the sixth power, which would mean that a doubling of axle-weights would cause either 16-times as much damage or 64-times as much damage. There are quite a few BOATs near where I live that are heavily damaged by convoys of 4x4s.
I find myself wondering along these lines: Runners contrubute financially to the upkeep of these national trails (and maybe footpaths in the furture), therefore, they take presidence over other users. Therefore, walkers would be under presure to pay into the existing system. This could lead onto something along the lines of 'pay & go' use of the network. No voucher to use = on the spot fine = valid source of income for maintenance/admin. Just a thought.
In the olden days when the Pennine Way was first opened, and there were no such things as 'National Trails', it was all very simple. The idea was to pack all your kit and walk from one end to the other. Thoughout the 1970s, if you told anyone you were a keen walker, they'd invariably ask... "Have you walked the Pennine Way?"
These days, there's a lot more choice, at home as well as abroad, and there are only so many walkers willing or able to pack all their kit and walk a trail from end to end. So, it looks as though options for the future are limited.
The ideal situation would be for people to do what was originally intended... and walk the trails from end to end. Failing that, they're only going to continue existing if they become multi-use beasts. And if that fails... then they're doomed! Seriously though... the authorities aren't likely to keep hacking back the undergrowth and spending money replacing signposts and stiles if no-one is using them.
Me... I prefer the first option... but I would say that, wouldn't I?
<I have no view on this but have you been on any of the LDWA challenge events? They use footpaths on their challenge walks and if you are a slower walker you really don't need to follow the instructions to navigate the route. There is a great big wide trail where something like 200 walkers have gone through. If you don't want things like this going on then you can't justify LDWA challenge walks and other events using trails and footpaths.>
Forty years ago, I entered the Chiltern Marathon but was so appalled by the damage that it caused, broken stiles, shortcuts taken through growing crops, footpaths churned up etc., that I promised myself that I'd never participate in a challenge event again; nor have I. They are legal, but I regard them as an improper use of the countryside and I will have nothing to do with them.
What concerns me so much about Natural England's association with Trailblazer is that, so far as I'm aware, it is the first time that it has entered into this kind of commercial arrangement. If it proves to be financially advantageous where is it going to end? Are we going to see interpretive panels (which I also dislike) sponsored by manufacturers of soft drinks on some our mountains and loveliest viewpoints?
It is possible to argue that runners will be only a minor inconvenience to walkers on national trails, but what if cyclists and horse-riders demanded similar events? Can you imagine the effect they would have on the South Downs Way and the Pennine Bridleway, which are the only two national trails that are bridleways throughout their length? The law requires cyclists to give way to pedestrians and horse-riders on bridleways, but is it likely that many of them will when taking part in a competitive event?
We've all probably had unfortunate experiences with cyclists on bridleways (and also on footpaths which they have no right to use). I was almost pushed into a canal by a cyclist coming behind me with no warning. When I stepped into his path to avoid a puddle, he swore at me and fended me off with his hand. On another occasion, I was walking down a steep footpath in the Chilterns and two mountain bikers came hurtling down the hill at breakneck speed yelling at me to get out of the way. (Note that this is not a condemnation of all cyclists, the majority of whom behave considerately towards walkers.)
You will always have the stories of irresponsible or inconsiderate runners or cylists or even walkers. The fact there is a commercial aspect going on along a few trails won't change that. You will have the same proportion of incosiderate users. You are likely to find that the runners, cyclists and walkers on any trail also partake in the other activities. Just because they are running or cycling or walking doesn't change their attitudes to others and the land they are passing over. If you actually think that a walkng man suddenly becomes a monster as soon as he starts running you are mistaken. It is not the act that makes someone inconsiderate but they themselves are already that, or not as the vast majority are.
I myself am a fast walker and find myself held up by slower walkers just like runners and cyclists are. I wait for them to realise I want past or I say loudly and courteously "excuse me". It has been surprisingly common to come across a group who turn, see I'm their trying to get past and just carry on blocking my way intent in their often inane conversations. Who is irresponsible there?
I don't want to spark the old debate about irresponsible walkers/runners/cyclists* as it has been done to death already and gets nowhere. We are all users and this event will only bring more users to the trails. No bad thing IF you want to keep them. Money talks. Even that of Trailblaze runners/walkers doing their thing just like us walkers.
What I meant about money talks is not the Trailblaze money but the money of anyone using the trails and contributing to the local community. Rural communities often have their own stresses so supporting a small village shop on the way to do a section of the trailblaze thing is good not bad. Every little helps afterall.
Sincere apologies for addressing you as Lostsheep! Put it down to a Senior Moment. I replied to a query from Lostsheep yesterday and I'm afraid the name got stuck in my mind.
What I meant about money talks is not the Trailblaze money but the money of anyone using the trails and contributing to the local community. Rural communities often have their own stresses so supporting a small village shop on the way to do a section of the trailblaze thing is good not bad. Every little helps afterall.
According to Trailblaze's own promotional video, I didn't spot anything about supporting the local economy. In fact, it was pitched more at encouraging runners to be serviced by vehicles driven by friends, who would deliver food and drink along the trail. The village shop didn't get a mention. I've always referred to this type of approach to the outdoors as 'hit and run', because it contributes nothing to local economies, and in fact does the exact reverse.
And just for the record, I don't want to re-open the old debate about irresponsible walkers/runners/cyclists, I was merely pointing out that as soon as a competitive element is introduced, the norms of courteous behaviour are likely to be compromised. Just consider the decline in standards from the old Corinthian ideal of sportsmanship once professionalism was introduced.
When the Olympic Games are held next year, i shall let my home and on the proceeds go walking in a country whose language I do not speak. Like to join me, Paddy?
The little white boxes don't seem too intrusive, compared to all the other furniture found on a walking route. If sensitively sited, they shouldn't be too much of a problem.
The problem comes when other organisations want to start doing something similar, and installing their little boxes all along the route.
This sort of timing has been done for years, but the 'clocks' are usually in local pubs. Which encourages local trade...
It think it's probably a flawed application of technology, since it relies on a tag; there are plenty of other ways of doing it that wouldn't require this technology. And since the whole thing relies on trust in the first place (e.g. I could cycle the route instead of running it, or drive...), what purpose does the tag really serve? It seems to be an attempt to 'verify' runners' performance in a realistically unverifiable way. It's not as if they're competing for Olympic gold medals.
Providing a virtual racing challenge for trail runners is fine, but I don't see any need for the infrastructure.
When the Olympic Games are held next year, i shall let my home and on the proceeds go walking in a country whose language I do not speak. Like to join me, Paddy?
Dunno about letting my house... it's pretty tiny and has no mod cons!
However, I've made a note of the Olympic Games dates, with a view to seeing if I can find some sort of project, at home or abroad, to fill the space. A nice, long National Trail, walked in the 'traditional' manner, would suit me fine!
The first I heard about London winning the bid for the 2012 Olympics was on the summit of Monte Ritondu in Corsica. A Frenchman from Cameroon told me. I tend not to follow the news while I'm travelling. Governments come and go, world disasters strike and people clean up afterwards, and most of it just doesn't show on my radar.
The little white boxes don't seem too intrusive, compared to all the other furniture found on a walking route. If sensitively sited, they shouldn't be too much of a problem.
The problem comes when other organisations want to start doing something similar, and installing their little boxes all along the route.
This sort of timing has been done for years, but the 'clocks' are usually in local pubs. Which encourages local trade...
It think it's probably a flawed application of technology, since it relies on a tag; there are plenty of other ways of doing it that wouldn't require this technology. And since the whole thing relies on trust in the first place (e.g. I could cycle the route instead of running it, or drive...), what purpose does the tag really serve? It seems to be an attempt to 'verify' runners' performance in a realistically unverifiable way. It's not as if they're competing for Olympic gold medals.
Providing a virtual racing challenge for trail runners is fine, but I don't see any need for the infrastructure.
" It seems to be an attempt to 'verify' runners' performance in a realistically unverifiable way."
True - just because something is technically feasible, it doesn't make it a good idea.
I'd have thought that many runners would have garmins or other GPS units to log their routes anyway.
