vandalism on Leppard

What Jugger said.

If I had to make a guess… chipping away the rock wouldn't have been about "not getting wet".

It would have been about diverting the water to the outside of the trail to keep the bottom of that section from becoming a pool of water / mud that would eventually turn in to a wet filthy mud bog that eventually promote even further erosion.

EDIT - I have done very little trailwork and I have no idea if that was the best way to accomplish drainage (though I have my doubts). I am merely looking at it from "If I had chipped away that rock what possible reason would I have had?"

What Jugger said.

more of what boozy the clown said. go back and read the op, macaroo didn't intend this to be a flame war.

heckler, i see you deleted your post in response to thad's. why not let the water run to where it wants at the bottom of the rock and put in a french drain or a grid to take the water to the out side and to a ditch that would need to be dug to get the water off the trail.

The issue here is the lens through which you're looking at this. You seem to be set on interpreting Pete's trail work as "damage" or "vandalism" to the rock in question. This is seriously flawed - applying the same logic would mean that you should characterize any trail work done on the shore as "vandalism." Of course, this is ridiculous - almost entering Monica-like territory.

It's too bad that a feature that you clearly valued has been altered. However, perhaps next time you should be asking constructive questions and keeping an open mind as to why an experienced (and legendary) trail builder is changing a line rather than labelling it as vandalism.

the other lens is that people are getting upset over the use of one word instead of looking at the context of the actual post.

I can't be positive but it looks like someone is actually physically bashing the crap out of the granite sections of trail on leppard (the best parts). Did someone actually mean to do this??

Because this was Peters solution to a problem that was put in place with forethought and calculation by hard working volunteers (and I don't mean Pete) who don't deserve to have their work called vandalism.
.

Because this was Peters solution to a problem.

so a guy can't ask a question about what's being done or why without getting told to hit the road?

Nobodies told Mac to hit the road.

the other lens is that people are getting upset over the use of one word instead of looking at the context of the actual post.

Word choice sets context and meaning. The use of "vandalism" and "damage" when referring to a trail builder's work is asking for trouble - especially after the work on the rock in question was already explained.

Because this was Peters solution to a problem that was put in place with forethought and calculation by hard working volunteers (and I don't mean Pete) who don't deserve to have their work called vandalism.
.

Word choice sets context and meaning. The use of "vandalism" and "damage" when referring to a trail builder's work is asking for trouble - especially after the work on the rock in question was already explained.

well the op didn't know that when he orignally asked the question did he?

JFC, it's right there in black and white but maybe we need to repost it again and bold the important bits and underline the really important bits.

I can't be positive but it looks like someone is actually physically bashing the crap out of the granite sections of trail on leppard (the best parts). Did someone actually mean to do this??

Nobodies told Mac to hit the road.

he's getting a lot of heat for what was a reasonable question.

I posted because I was concerned that it seems someone is/was taking it upon him/herself to permanently modify something that cannot be undone.

The issue here is the lens through which you're looking at this. You seem to be set on interpreting Pete's trail work as "damage" or "vandalism" to the rock in question. This is seriously flawed - applying the same logic would mean that you should characterize any trail work done on the shore as "vandalism." Of course, this is ridiculous - almost entering Monica-like territory.

It's too bad that a feature that you clearly valued has been altered. However, perhaps next time you should be asking constructive questions and keeping an open mind as to why an experienced (and legendary) trail builder is changing a line rather than labelling it as vandalism.

What Jugger said.

more of what boozy the clown said. go back and read the op, macaroo didn't intend this to be a flame war.

I've read the thread a couple of times mark….the title of this thread has the word vandalism in it. He goes on to say he doesn't like things permanetly changed….I'd like to agree with juggers post. Is it not ok for me to do this? Should I consult you first?

I would say the use of the word "vandalism" goes over rather well on this forum…lol.

so a guy can't ask a question about what's being done or why without getting told to hit the road?

If the thread title had a question mark at the end of it, then it would be a question. As it stands, it is a statement. ;)

I've read the thread a couple of times mark….the title of this thread has the word vandalism in it. He goes on to say he doesn't like things permanetly changed….I'd like to agree with juggers post. Is it not ok for me to do this? Should I consult you first?

I would say the use of the word "vandalism" goes over rather well on this forum…lol.

when the thread was started the op didn't know that this was trail work. that was clear from him asking questions about what he saw on the trail. yes, after the fact maybe vandalism wasn't the best word, but at the time he didn't know what to make of what he saw. you decided to support jugger on his view that he shouldn't have called this trail work vandalsim and that's where the flaw is and why i've kept referenncing the op.

feel free to agree with jusgger's post if you want, but it doesn't make his assertion correct. the flaw in the debate is assuming the op knew this was planned trailwork and from the questions raised in the op that was not the case.

from the pics posted in the op i feel it's reasonable to ask the question as to whether this section of trail work was necessary at all or if the chiseling was the best option.

why can't we have debate about trail work?

if someone in the know had said Pete did this bit of work because the problem was xyz and this was deemed the best way to solve it then the thread may have gone a differnt, and hopefully more productive direction.