Talk:Trail ethics

Merger proposal

I propose that this page be merged into Leave No Trace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.178.10 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Leave no trace" applies to "non-motorized visitors" so its scope is too narrow to contain trail ethics, which includes off-roading and hunting. It might make more sense to merge "Leave no trace" into "Trail ethics", or to merge "Trail ethics" into "Habitat conservation". If anyone would like to undertake such a merger it would be fine with me.—LithiumFlash (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this article really needed? Shouldn't it merge with Trail? Rwood128 (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be OK with me. The only concern is that "Trail" is already quite long (more than 60,000 bytes). The articles currently have little redundant material, and both may be developed more. The net result may be an ariticle burdened with very long text. It's Ok with me, but not sure how other readers may feel about it.—LithiumFlash (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

LithiumFlash, I took trail ethics to mean the etiquette that applies to users of trails. However, your reference to merging with "Habitat conservation" would suggest that you sees the scope of the article as being much broader, and in fact to be more about landscape and the environment. The examples, which I took, and edited, from Hiking indicate what I thought this article was about. This led me to believe that its scope was limited and that a merge with Trail sensible.

I also found the images/captions confusing and off-topic and have edited accordingly. Rwood128 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I see the scope as anything related to trails and ethics. It can include (for example) how using trails affects the environment (Habitat conservation), and how other things can affect trail quality such as urban development. According Trails, trails can include "Urban pedestrian footpaths...sometimes called alleys" and it's properly referenced. So I did add an image showing an example. Thanks for your edits to this article.—LithiumFlash (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I love alleys, so I'm totally confused by your bringing back the image of the Vancouver alley that I had previously removed. Both in London, England, where I grew-up, and in Canada where I now live, alleys are a valuable way of escaping from traffic. Alleys or lanes–along with other urban footpaths–can enhance the urban environment and often are of historic significance. Furthermore, re your caption, commercial development is a natural part of an urban landscape; so again this particular image (along with its caption) doesn't make sense to me (this is China Town in an old part of a large city). But maybe you are confusing trail ethics with environmental ethics? That is I see the effect on a trail of urban development or industry as an environmental matter and trail ethics as relating to how a trail is used by people.

There is an ambiguity, in the phrase "trail ethics", but I would suggest that it would be better to deal with environmental questions under environmental ethics. Rwood128 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the image ( ) was only to show that some trails are in cities. It's also in Trail concerning "Urban pedestrian footpaths". Here it was to help with the section "Trails in urban areas" which is currently sparse and has no accompanying images.—LithiumFlash (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation. But I couldn't see the connection with trail ethics. The article is supposed to be concerned "with ethics as it applies to the use of trails". The topic of the new section is the urban environment rather than how the footpath is used by people.

What this article should be concerned with is the damage users of trail can cause to the environment, and the conflicts that might develop between trail users. The subject of damage to the environment, through which trails pass, is better dealt with in sn article like Environmental ethics. Perhaps this article should be renamed "Trail etiquette" to avoid any confusion. I'm adding a more relevant image of a urban trail. Rwood128 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is another image, which illustrates a path where there are difficulties because both walkers and cyclists use the same urban path. Hope that this helps clarify what I believe that this article is about. Rwood128 (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Walkers and cyclists use the same narrow towpath along the Regents Canal in London, England

See also [1] Rwood128 (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Ethics and the National Parks

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahcl99 (article contribs).