I'm a bit late to this discussion but I'd like to make a case. Naming things is good. All of the unnamed features we all love no doubt have some kind of reference in our own minds or informal names we use with our buddies. But when we want to talk publicly (here for example) we are left trying to describe what and where we are talking about. Over time names tend to accrue until you get really cool embodiments of whole trails like in Italy where practically every bend has some kind of public reference or name (often from a built up history) and all the locals share a rich ability to talk about it all. I 'enjoyed' reading and recognizing whitehonky's trail descriptions at the start of this thread . . . which were very good . . . but most of us struggle to get across what or where we are talking about.
Here's an example. I would like to see what everyone thinks about the very large fallen tree midway on Mel's where the trail goes beneath. Over the winter it has cracked on the bottom side and the whole thing has settled a few inches. Has anyone else been bumping their head more often? After hitting mine once I stopped (well it sort of stopped me) and took a look at it. It seemed pretty stable but the engineer in me thought about whether it might move down over the trail in a more threatening way sometime soon. A week later there was a crew cutting trees along University Drive, so I stopped and asked them if they knew who to talk to at City Hall if it ever became a hazard. I could not get across to them where or what I was talking about. They knew I was talking about Mel's, and though they said they knew the trails pretty well (one rode), they kept asking if I was talking about Nicole's Pole. And so, back to my point: I replied that Nicole's Pole was on, uhh, Nicole's. "Of course," they said, and then started talking in fair detail about Nicole's Pole and its history and recent partial demise. So, two 'poles,' both noteworthy points on their respective trails, but recognition only for the named one. I want a name for the other. Maybe Head Smashed In Mud Dip, I don't know.
Now I do like the idea of at least a few names for trail features. Meet me in 1/2 hour at Head Smashed In. But lets start at the bigger level. The name "Mel's" has referred to the whole length of the Naheeno section and Mel's proper. Whenever I've used it to refer to the Naheeno section people often don't know it exists or are confused about what they think is the start (at University Drive) of Mel's and what I am talking about as the start. Lets go back to the beginning and call the upper portion the Naheeno Trail. Then we have two reference points instead of just one. We also then have names for two distinct sections of trail. Finally we have a trail called Naheeno which refers to its original name plus marks the park (makes sense with the ghostly playground) that once existed there.
Remember, naming is a democratic function: the names we use become the names official.
