Man made structures - what's allowed

TTF...technical trail feature?

I have seen some cool TTF's in Indiana. A large log fell and they built an elaborate ladder ride over the bridge. Very cool, I thought. It had a purpose.

I don't care for the TTF's that have no purpose other than to be a TTF.

I picked my bike up and stepped over a very large tree on the LCHT that could have a cool bridge constructed over it.

Didn't read those links yet.

Would it be building if, a large tree fell parallel to the tree and the ends were cut (for safety reasons of course) in such a way that they appeared to be ramps to ride the tree?

These both translate into the same thing: trail widening. Trail widening is bad.

Not always. Trail widdening caused by people riding around a puddle or root or rock is bad. Purposely creating an alternate, sustainable line to give a different riding experience however, I don't see the problem with that.

The problem with log piles is they fall apart almost instantly, and you end up with a dangerous DTTF (dynamic technical trail feature ). The IMBA trail building guide doesn't recommend them for that very reason.

Wooglin has a different threshold than others.

Others (Mike Vandeman comes to mind) have a threshold that would exclude bikes from the trails altogether for some of the reasons Wooglin has stated here....bikes detract from the natural experience Vandeman seeks. (BTW, Vandeman is a wacko, but Wooglin isn't.)

But the points made should be considered. As others will share the opinions.

I always figured we don't have a TTF's because the people who actually do any work aren't motivated to building TTF's.

FWIW....the Canal had some years and years ago. Canal Authority had them removed. They were crazy and should have been removed.

Dustin,
I'm 100% for TTF's.
However, in this post as well as the past posts on this subject, you are running into naysayers and resistance.
What you need is to gather support from current non-SORBA-CSRA members and make them become members. ie organize the un-organizable.
Most (not all) current members are either not capable of riding such obstacles or don't see the benefit in them. BV had it right in saying people who actually do the work aren't motivated to build TTFs.
If I had to guess...I'd say there are only 3-4 current members of SORBA-CSRA and a handful of other non-but-potential cyclists in Augusta that would be interested in this. The rest would be out of towners.
My point....you don't have much support outside or within our local club and this is partly where the failure is rooted.

Woog, I appreciate your "Natural approach". But it's elitist and wrong to outright deny a user group of possible riding opportunities based on your wishes and thoughts of what's right and wrong.
If IMBA stuck to this rule they would need to remove lots of features already constructed across the country.
There are many ways to integrate features into a trail. However, with a closed mind it will be much more difficult to integrate TTF's TTF's, TTF's, TTF's. (I'll take my dope slap the next time we see each other.)
Maybe you should channel your anger to your own club and not try to bring down members of ours and the progress they are attempting to obtain.
I say this to you with all due respect seeing as you've been a member, a cyclist, and have done numerous things for the club and mountain biking over the years. Thanks for all your effort!

Dustin,
That was a good post addressing the issue I was going to bring up...permission from the land managers.

The Board of Director's meeting is this weekend and I will be there. I will be happy to address the subject with those who have the insight. I know this isn't the first time it has come up and I'm sure it won't be the last!