with all due respect, Are you saying we need to be an expert in interpreting gathered info? You really have a way a sugar coating things. We have 2 threads on this topic: UP signage revisited and MI fatality report. Both threads have a select few who strongly oppose the new policy. The new policy was bashed from the beginning and strong words were used. Some have blamed the less signage in more fatalities. You yourself always jump on your soapbox about giving adequate time to come to conclusion, saying no right or wrong, doesn't matter to you yet you are perfectly fine sitting back ignoring those who immediately blame the signs for fatalities. You post generic statements like you are trying to keep the peace which is good but you do it mainly in your bias. You said nothing about right or wrong, adequate time to conclude when the few here blame signs for death which is an severely premature radical statement. Where were you than? I know where you were, just sitting back silent because it is more in line with your reasoning and now when I or someone use the available info to support our position here you are discounting it. Go back and look at your posts for yourself.
Before you have a final opinion? You have clearly demonstrated your opinion and it here for the record. Counting post or interpreting experiences is factual. It will help determine the legitimacy of the policy because the policy was implemented to produce a safer trail and riders stating there experience demonstrates their changes, if there are changes in riding behaviors, just one element in the effectiveness of less signage. It just seems you are trying to cover a few bases protecting yourself.
It's no secret I am defending the new policy and that started out as opinion. A seasons worth of time has passed and that has produced some valuable information. You claim is subjective and basically exclude it, like a few others do and it's clear bias is working hard. Remember you said this: "I would not get too comfortable with the new MI sign policy. WI DNR interviewed MI riders along the UP & Vilas County border & MI riders had nothing but positive comments regarding Vials County trails compared to MI trails. The WI DNR statement was very broad but I'm sure trail signage was part of the positive Vilas trail experience. It is the silent majority that makes these choices & spends their income where the experience is best in their opinion."
"As far as trail signage I see 2 states WI & MI going in opposite directions as far as trail signage. WI Vilas County very detailed in their trail signage & even added solar powered trail signs on trail 45 north of Eagle River to remind people to ride safe & stay sober. In Vilas every trail twist, turn, bridge, big bumps,stop signs you name it it has signage. I don't view this as clutter in anyway plenty of trees on intimate trails & signs enhance my riding experience. Vilas also wants to widen trails to 16 feet for safer groomer & snowmobile passing. On the other hand MI says they want to reduce sign clutter, sign trails only where sharp turns, lose bridge ahead & other signs to make riders slow down & not ride by signs. For me I ride by rhythm take all trail info in & just ride many times on autopilot since I know the trails in both states so not many surprises for me. So IMO only it is more of a newbie convenience to have detailed trail signage in the area they choose to ride. I rode further south this year in WI on trails I have not ridden before & the trail signage was very helpful to keep me safe & going in the correct direction"
How did you eliminate the motive for less signage, safer trails and more consistency? You exaggerate the clutter and exclude the safe and consistency which was why the policy was implemented! BIAS!!!!!!!! ?
