What's the big deal? For the mountain bike trails to now be considered multi-use/hiking trails which would be a big step backwards in getting the trails recognized as mountain bike trails.
Then any maintenance must cater to hikers as well as bikers.
So when you are building your gaps, jumps and a-frames, you must now build stairs to allow hikers to get by them.
Most bikers DO yield when it is safe to do so. Are we now expected to yield at the expense of our safety?
I think you're focusing on the worst case scenario. MTB trails could be catagorized as MTB primary trails (a type of multi-use) and be maintained for mountain bikes. The fact that hikers are allowed on the trails does not necessarily mean that the trail must be built to suit them. A MTB trial that allows hikers may be a pretty lousy trail to hike on.
The Dump in Victoria is an excellent example of this. The trails are MTB trails that allow other users. They're built for mountain bikes, not hikers or equestrians, and as a result, they're pretty lousy for these users. Result? Few hikers, few equestrians, minimal conflicts. Mountain bikes still technically have to yield, but no hiker or equestrian on these trails would be unaware enough to not be ready to relinquish the right-of-way if necessary. I doubt that any of the trail work that's gone on in The Dump was geared around hikers or equestrians. Perhaps it would be different in North Van, but this area is quite similar: public land (CRD parks in our case), administered by the state (CRD) and managed by the users (SIMBS)