G04, G05, and G08.  I'll be sad to see that higher line go away.  For twelve years I've ridden G07 down towards the west, G06 back up the hill, and finished off with G08, G05, G04, and G02 to the bridge.  I suppose the desire to close that line is related the incredible(ly stupid) table top jump directly over the asphalt path between G04 and G05?
 
M18 is a long stretch to close and kind of abandons M19.  Admittedly, I don't regularly ride either as I usually cross Marshall using M09 and M12.
 
I'm happy to see G15 included.  Thats a great short downhill, and a true test of strength coming up in a middle chainring.  It sees a TON of foot traffic too.
 
Overall, I think the majority of the proposed tracks look good.  I've ridden just about everything mapped out here (red and green), and many of the red trails are very rarely used and overgrown or have horrible flow.  With the exception of what I mentioned above, the red trails are not part of my regular ride.
 
I'll be anxious to see the proposals for east of bridge 3 to Votier's Flats parking.  There are some important trails in there, including a few ridiculously steep chutes.  Many Calgary riders have learned to downhill the impossibly steep by riding in Fish Creek.
 
Chris.
 

 First note - distinct lack of pink on this map.  If the vision is to create a trail that is continuous then this map fails to achieve this.  This massive amount of red ink is a solid blow to the future of mountain biking.
MAJOR ISSUE - get behind a new big idea - if this massive amount of trail closure is to occur (I see a lot of red on this map) then we should get build a new section that runs from G11 down to bridge 1 all being 100% west of the paved trail.  Loss of G8,5,4 is super detrimental to my use and enjoyment of that great section of trail (more below).
other comments:
S02 should be connected to bridge 1.  How many times does the biking community need to request this?  Where is the explanation behind not having a continuous trail?
The closure of g8,5 and 4 is a huge loss and should be compensated for.  It is not the biking communities fault that the ridiculous and poorly planned unsafe in all seasons asphalt section was put it.  Our route is to follow g10,7 then 6 (which climbs back up) and then descend g8,5,4.  Closing this would wipe out 50% of the best part of the fish creek network.  Here is a suggestion, if G8,5,4 need to be closed.  Lets build a new section starting at g11 that descends to bridge 1 but remains entirely (100%) west of the blue line and free from user conflict and safety issues...
The way I ride it I don't bother to use S01.  I would like to connect the end of S02 which is fairly high up the hill to B24 via a highline trail (this would be a new trail).  It would conserve some of that elevation in order to make a nicer entrance into B24.  Often when riding we have remarked that it would be nice for a trail to be built through the vegetated area above B24 rather than have bikes cruising at high speed down the steep and straight pedestrian (brown colour) trail only to turn off to catch the entrance back onto singletrack.
M18 - why close it.  This should be maintained as a way around the holding ponds.  Funny that a massive development can occur in the park yet a small trail ringing the construction is closed.  Like someone else said the section of M19 is orphaned with no logical explanation provided.
B08 - the trail essentially ends here.  At one of the main vehicle access points that is perhaps heaviest used there is no trail east?  Perhaps something needs to be done in this high use area to get bikes safely to bridge 4.
In summary, no explanation for key closures, no rationale for why new connectors are not to be allowed.  The map appears to have been created largely by non-riders without adequate input from the biking community.  Is this presented as a draft or the final word?
 
 

Hi Olivier,
first off, this is an outstanding piece of work as it allows us to actually talk about trails without the confusion of describing where they are. Good job :)
I use M19-M18 all the time as it is my main access to the Evercreek/Everglade area. I can hardly believe C02-C04-C06-C13 is green while M18 is red. In fact, that area around M18 should have a few new pink lines as it is prime location. What is the rationale behind closing M18?
I too will be mourning the loss of G04, G05, and G08 :(
Looking forward to the rest of the maps. There will be plenty to discuss...
Rich

 
Thanks everyone for the feedback so far. I'm heading out of town for a few days, so will review further when I return and post some answers to your questions.
 
In the meantime, encourage any other cyclists you know to voice their opinion here. The more feedback we get, the more meaningful the feedback I can provide to Parks.
 
Thanks, and have a good long weekend.

 
 
So I just got back from riding Fish Creek and I took at look at M18 and M19.  Frankly, I think Alberta Parks has it backwards on this one.  M19 has some serious water drainage issues.  There was standing water along a good stretch despite the really dry weather for the last week.  I would think some of this trail needs to be moved.
 
M18 looks like it's in really great shape.  Much of it is a little further up the slope and well buried in the trees.  Dry as a bone and no signs of erosion.  I'd like to hear Parks reasons for keeping one and closing the other.
 
Chris.

 
I looked at it on Thursday and rode all the trails on Monday.  I am encouraged by most of it.   I would have to argue the one comment regarding the "table top" jump on the proposed one trail closure. ( I believe this would be the far western section of single track that crosses the bike path G8 / G5 / G4)  I like this descent; it has a couple of neat tight turns and a flowing descent that I will miss. This section makes for a pretty good climb as well.   However, I will confess it is in direct conflict with the paved bike path as it goes up, crosses and drops immediately after the bike path.  The potential for a collision if the mountain biker is not yielding the right of way to the bike path users is high.  To call it a table top jump is akin to running a red light.  As an option, it would be good to see a sign stating mountain bikers must yield to bike path users or even a reroute so the trail does not cross at 90 degrees to the paved path. 
 
The closure of the short connector off the paved bike path to G16  G10 seems unnecessary and will in effect make G11 unused. If you use G11 in a western direction there will be no way to get back on single track missing all of C16.   The closure of the short connector should be reconsidered.
 
There is a trail not shown that I use and am not sure what the intent is there.  (ie there are couple of descents at the eastern edge of Evercreek Bluffs Way where the paved bike path ends.  It appears the one concaved descent is going to be left open (C31). Just to the immediate west of this there is a narrow, (tight through the trees at the top and goes over a couple of very minor little rock steps lower down), single track  that intersects with a single track section  (C20). This descent (or climb) is cool.  It does not seem to appear on the map.  Hope we can still use it  ( I was climbing it on Monday and a couple of ladies who were walking down it said I was crazy.  Said hello and got a chuckle out of it as I think they did too)    The trail at the bottom of the C31 decent that heads east, (M01 & M03), has a series of neat snaking turns and comes across a small channel of water is shown as an existing trail to keep. This is great as it shows there is an acceptance to mountain biking in Fish Creek.  At the end of  M03 where a small channel of water is, there appears to be a short reroute to M04. Currently there is again a small approx 24 inch bridge across this small channel with a very short little climb up to M05. M05 is a good trail and I don’t see the need to close it. The open area at the end of M03 leading to the small channel is susceptible to muddy conditions. I would think a good solution here is to build a short connector between M04 and M05 and used in conjunction with the pink new trail proposed as a connectorto M04 will reroute this short boggy section. 
 
There is a closure on one section (M11),  that I use occasionally and if closed as shown, would not miss it at all.  (This is a somewhat obscure trail that follows in the trees just at the edge of the upper bench and is not used very often) 
 
I am interested to see what the intent is also east of bridge 3.   The "side trail" descending above Marshall Springs is of interest to me.    (climb the double track (road if you will) up to the edge of Evergreen Community hang a tight left turn onto the red shale path. This trail starts to the left off the red shale path and traverses the slope to cross above the stairs and continues around and down to where it crosses a red shale path leading to those same stairs.  I hope this trail section can be salvaged.
 
For over a decade but more recently I have been concerned about what the future intentions were going to be for mountain biking in Fish Creek park. With the development of the communities of Evergreen I feared the loss of the single track that many have enjoyed. This shows an acceptance for many of the trails we love to ride.   It is a very positive sign.
 
Kim

 
 
... 42.
 
One a more serious note, let me try to answer the many great questions asked here.
 
My apologies if trails are missing from the maps. Please continue pointing out omissions or errors so they may be corrected. What is important to note is that any trail not on the maps (i.e. trails not explicitly listed as singletrack in forthcoming official Fish Creek maps) will be considered off-limits.  [ Side note: With GPS accuracy running as low as +/- 20 meters in the woods on a north-facing slope, trails are hard to decipher when reviewing the track log, if the trail was even found in the first place. ]
 
I am obviously biased in favour of this project, since I've put some effort into it. But consider that had Parks followed suit with other (misguided) policies around, they would have just closed the trails without consultation. What we have now is a process by which the CMBA is able to submit comments and suggestions to Parks, thereby having an intelligent dialog about the trails. Even if we don't get every single bit of trail we want, we're still moving in a positive and sustainable direction for the longer term.
 
Shannon Terrace is a challenge. As you can see from the maps, the NW side is a wet pond and the SE has a preservation zone. In between, there's the Environmental Learning Centre and gravel trails used by school age kids for numerous projects. This is deemed a high conflict area and Parks has asked that we use the existing paved or gravel trails to connect through. As mentioned in a comment, we may be better off cutting off Shannon Terrace from this project and getting across at Bridge 2.
 
Compounding the problem in Shannon Terrace, and presenting some challenges all-around, is the general avoidance of creating new singletrack. That is why there are very few traces of purple on the map - the emphasis is on using existing trails wherever possible (yes, that includes routing bikes onto gravel and paved trails occasionally). An argument may be made that in high-use areas, separation is better, so we will continue pursuing that approach as well.
 
In summary, here are the major points of feedback:

• Consider options for keeping G04/05/08, or reroute the trail.
• M18 is an important and well used trail.
• Figure out Shannon Terrace - connect with singletrack, or cut it out.
• Look at options for better connections into/out of the Bebo Grove area.

 
Our next step is to bring this feedback to Parks and also review the forthcoming maps up to MacLeod Trail. With a holistic view of the singletrack network west of MacLeod, some changes may make more sense to all those involved.
 
Stay tuned, I'll post updates as they happen.

Hey guys.. I took my first spin through Fish Creek Park on the weekend, as I am considering moving into the area. Following my fragmented ride, I decided to see what CMBA has on the go. I'm glad to hear that you've established a forum to have "intelligent dialogue" to move forward in a "positive and sustainable" direction... and furthermore that there is a plan in place for a sanctioned singletrack network. I also know first hand that it can be difficult to hear the griping and to see the arms-in-the-air reactions from those who want it all and now. So.. just a word of thanks and encouragement to stay the course for the long term goal. I believe the general attitudes in the public and the governments are moving favarobly towards accessible and legitimate mountain biking. Cheers, Rob D.