District of North Vancouver Natural Areas Trails Strategy Survey

Posted by: nolookdoug

I don't really blame the DNV here for blaming it on Seymour issues. Go on TrailForks and turn on Activity Recordings and it speaks for itself. It's nuts.

Still hoping they'll sanction more trails though.

A lot of people recording shit they shouldnt be recording.....why are so many so clueless ??

Posted by: xy9ine

Posted by: nolookdoug

I don't really blame the DNV here for blaming it on Seymour issues. Go on TrailForks and turn on Activity Recordings and it speaks for itself. It's nuts.

holy shit

Yeah, that was my reaction too. I think most people would be surprised ¯\(ツ)/¯

Here's an image for those that don't use TrailForks. I pixelated it to hide the trails as I best could while still showing the situation..

Posted by: nolookdoug

Yeah, that was my reaction too. I think most people would be surprised ¯(ツ)/¯

Here's an image for those that don't use TrailForks. I pixelated it to hide the trails as I best could while still showing the situation..

not nearly pixelated enough.

Posted by: Kenny

Posted by: Coiler

Posted by: Silk

Thanks all!

I forgot to mention if you could put in a good word inside the survey for the Independent Builders on Pipeline / Fromme that would be of great help.

As of April 29th the builders of Pipeline can no longer do any maintenance until further notice. Due to recent unsanctioned / unapproved building on Seymour

the DNV wants us to sign a new builders agreement that we will not sign due to the wording and requirements of commercial general liability insurance for each builder

of Pipeline.

See sections 20 - 24

Section 23 is especially alarming and we the builders will not take on all liability of a fully sanctioned trail with

building plans approved by the DNV.

Thanks again!

That's so nuts! 5 million CGL is friggin expensive, and having to name the DNV is also wild. I'd love to hear an insurance broker take on this; CGL for a bike trail builder must be incredibly hard to find.

Yeah, and it's not really the broker though, it's the underwriter/risk assessor people and this is all calculated based on the historical claims for any given industry. These guys are box checkers and I doubt there's a box for "chainsaw in the woods building stuff".

Unless the DNV actually worked with an insurance company to help organize an insurance policy specifically for trail builders, this will be next to impossible to obtain, because it literally doesn't exist.

It's such a disconnect. The DNV advertises travel and recreation on the North Shore, many people live on the north shore for these activities, and it put the region on the map. People don't move there because they like bridge traffic, it's often to get closer to the mountains and their activities.

Activities like riding and climbing, built by volunteers, and then the district just shuts them out. There is the same situation going on with the climbing on the north shore with some areas (like lighthouse park) in a grey area, and there are rumblings of it getting shut down. Promoting activities to bring residents and visitors (and their tax/business), while also actively opposing the fundamental development and maintenance of those activities is something that might work for 5 years, but it reaches a breaking point. 

https://www.vancouversnorthshore.com/activity/mountain-biking/

https://www.vancouversnorthshore.com/activity/rock-climbing/

Posted by: vantanclub

Posted by: Kenny

Posted by: Coiler

Posted by: Silk

Thanks all!

I forgot to mention if you could put in a good word inside the survey for the Independent Builders on Pipeline / Fromme that would be of great help.

As of April 29th the builders of Pipeline can no longer do any maintenance until further notice. Due to recent unsanctioned / unapproved building on Seymour

the DNV wants us to sign a new builders agreement that we will not sign due to the wording and requirements of commercial general liability insurance for each builder

of Pipeline.

See sections 20 - 24

Section 23 is especially alarming and we the builders will not take on all liability of a fully sanctioned trail with

building plans approved by the DNV.

Thanks again!

That's so nuts! 5 million CGL is friggin expensive, and having to name the DNV is also wild. I'd love to hear an insurance broker take on this; CGL for a bike trail builder must be incredibly hard to find.

Yeah, and it's not really the broker though, it's the underwriter/risk assessor people and this is all calculated based on the historical claims for any given industry. These guys are box checkers and I doubt there's a box for "chainsaw in the woods building stuff".

Unless the DNV actually worked with an insurance company to help organize an insurance policy specifically for trail builders, this will be next to impossible to obtain, because it literally doesn't exist.

It's such a disconnect. The DNV advertises travel and recreation on the North Shore, many people live on the north shore for these activities, and it put the region on the map. People don't move there because they like bridge traffic, it's often to get closer to the mountains and their activities.

Activities like riding and climbing, built by volunteers, and then the district just shuts them out. There is the same situation going on with the climbing on the north shore with some areas (like lighthouse park) in a grey area, and there are rumblings of it getting shut down. Promoting activities to bring residents and visitors (and their tax/business), while also actively opposing the fundamental development and maintenance of those activities is something that might work for 5 years, but it reaches a breaking point. 

https://www.vancouversnorthshore.com/activity/mountain-biking/

https://www.vancouversnorthshore.com/activity/rock-climbing/

At what point is there enough political will (from the people) to start replacing civil servants at the district? No idea on the governance structure, oversight etc. But at some point could this attitude change?

Posted by: grambo

At what point is there enough political will (from the people) to start replacing civil servants at the district? No idea on the governance structure, oversight etc. But at some point could this attitude change?

The electorate have power in that elected officials set the direction of the municipality and determine/influence policy. Council doesn't oversee every last detail of the operation though as staff are entrusted with the day to day operations. So as voters we can push certain issues in hopes that council will prioritize them, but there's no guarantee that will happen. Council has to proceed in what's in the best interests of the community as a whole. Council also has their own beliefs/ideas they consider as well, and that presumably includes doing things that will help get them re-elected. So while council does control the direction of a municipality, they can't just go about replacing staff because they are upsetting some of the electorate as people can't be dismissed without cause. Council could potentially decree that "independent builders don't need insurance", but if that goes against the recommendations of staff, particularly when it comes to issues of liability, the chances of that happening are basically nil.