[MA-RPC] FSTAG Comments

[James Hooper]

Yours is an optimistic reading.  In the Outdoor Recreation Accessibility 
Guidelines page 22, there is one definition for trails.
In the Trails Accessibility Guidelines, if you ignore the Preamble, I 
could agree with you.  But in the Preamble they push for making parts of 
AT accessible.  Their criteria seem to be to treat every section of the 
AT separately.  I have not looked at their Trail Business Rules a third 
document which we were not asked to review.

Walt Daniels wrote:

>>This is my basic comment in my write-up, they seem to want to 
>>treat all "trails" the same.
>>James Hooper
>>    
>>
>
>Not quite. USFS classifies trails on a primitive to urban scale and treats
>all trails of a class the same. The great bulk of the AT is in one of the
>two most primitive classes. Obviously there are urban-like settings where it
>goes through towns like Duncannon or Hanover.
>
>The rules one must obey are exception based. Everyone obeys the most
>stringent ADA requirements of the trail class unless they qualify for one or
>more of the exceptions. For the great bulk of the AT it is not hard to
>qualify for an exception. The most "endangered" parts are near trailheads.
>One of the things we need is a more carefull definition of a trailhead. Then
>we can either avoid building many trailheads, put trailheads in a place
>where the trail is tough enough to rate an exception, or be ADA friendly and
>place trailheads in places where it is relatively easy to provide ADA people
>with an AT-like experience without detracting too much from our notion of an
>AT-experience.
>
>One of the great things about the AT is the variety of experiences although
>some complain about the long green tunnel. I look forward to parts of the AT
>above treeline, through farm fields, up steep rocky terrain, strolling
>comfortably along a woods road, etc. I don't see any reason why occasional
>ADA accessible pieces would not add to the overall experience.
>
>  
>