Austin Ridge Riders... FR512...

[cxagent]

I think Chardog meant to post this work day for his second event - 

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by cxagent
Added link

[cxagent]

1 hour ago, crazyt said:

At least on this thread no one has said things like "new riders", "beginners" and "wheelchair ramps". I did say XC which is definitely true and is the main difference between ARR and FR512. 

It is easy to misinterpret what someone posts. I have had MANY of my posts cause trouble because my wording was not clear.

What crazyt did say was "Freeride 512 supports freeride trails (you can look up the definitions). Most riders are XC as it is easier."

The "new riders", "beginner" and "wheelchair ramps" have been said directly to me (not typed) by others outside of this thread / board. That makes me think it is such a common perception that people think it is not insulting to describe someone's volunteer work in those terms. Maybe I am too sensitive. Maybe they should walk a mile in my shoes. Or ride 50 miles on my ride.

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by cxagent
Added quote

[Cafeend]

Brushy Creek is an ARR trail that was built before ARR was involved but now ARR claims, supports and maintains it with the original builders.

Can you please elaborate on this?
In the past there has been differences and animosity between the original builder(s) and ARR. (or maybe more of the ARR members in charge and their trail building philosophy and not the group as a whole of course)
I might be wrong on that but having spoke with one OGs in particular there didn’t appear to be a lot of love.
I honestly don’t think BC would be what it is today if ARR had a hand from the get go. More of BC would truly be 1/4 notch and no so much DD.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WhoAmI]

Add me to the Not-On_Facebook people.  I'm really out of the loop when it comes to ARR related issues because of this.  :-/

[notyal]

18 hours ago, endo_ said:

As someone who has actually managed the ARR site for awhile, thank you to the three of you who visited! I really appreciated your support. Managing communication for email, a Facebook site,twitter site,Instagram site, mojo, arr website and a meetup page all for the different needs of the people is painful at best and to be honest not worth it. Consolidating forums had to happen. I suggest if you are adamant that ARR reinstate their site, join the board and take over managing the program. I’m sure Charlie and team would love some new blood and new ideas.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I build and maintain websites for a day job, and a few of those are for associations. These are absolutely the worst. They want it all and want it cheap (or even free). "Oh yeah, let's have a blog and forum and a calendar and a facebook/twitter/instagram feed and a members only section and can it integrate with our member management system and each month we'll do a Member Spotlight and a "download area" and all of this content will be produced for free by our volunteers. Oh, but let's not forget to run every little decision through a full committee review." 

That said, ARR should have some web presence. That is evident by the tone of this thread - even if it is just basic (static) club info and to direct people to the other content. Social media is way easier to push out content, but I think most people still look for a website first. 

[throet]

3 hours ago, crazyt said:

At least on this thread no one has said things like "new riders", "beginners"

I said that ARR is a great resource for new riders or riders new to the area. Hopefully nobody took that as an insult. For those who have spoken up on behalf of ARR, there certainly seems to be a defensive posture. Maybe we need to hear more about ARR's vision, community goals, ongoing achievements, and any needs that aren't being met by those of us benefitting from their services. There is a section specific to ARR on this forum, but in the several months that it has been there, I've only seen a few posts. Not sure what's on FB but I'll never see it because I don't use FB and don't care to. I'd also like to hear ARR's perspective on what, if anything, has changed since moving under IMBA. Has local funding improved or declined under that arrangement? I know that a couple of years ago people were stating publicly that they would be dropping support for ARR due to IMBA's position on opening wilderness areas to MTB (or something like that). Personally I thought it was terribly unfair for locals to punish ARR over IMBA's position, but I never really heard anything about how that played out.

As stated previously, I continue to support ARR annually even knowing what little I know about their work. I would be willing to do more if I had greater insight into specific goals, plans, and achievements across the broader MTB community.   

[cxagent]

Note in my earlier post I did not say BC was built by ARR.

Brushy Creek trails were started as bandit trails. I rode them and loved them then. About the time that I started with ARR, Wilco had found and was "looking into" those trails. (notes on the trail about call this phone number.)

ARR was asked to be the recognized organization (legal organized, insured, etc.). ARR accepted that responsibility so the trails could be officially recognized by the land owner / land manager. ARR / I have both worked with the OG and tried to stay out of their way. They are doing great things so unless they got way off the tracks, I thought it was better to stay out of the way. ARR has provided some of the tools, funding, etc. for some but not all of the work done since ARR getting involved. I don't know of any trail that riders have not provided their own time, tools, money, etc to build trails. BC is no exception.

Differences - I am sure of it. But any two people will have differences of opinion. I think we have worked thru any differences.  Animosity??? I hope not. I thought we had and still have a good working relationship.

Would BC be what it is today if it had followed the ARR approach of getting land owner approval first? I have to say I doubt it. When a land owner is given the choice up front like ARR does, they usually go with the 'less risky' approach of start with the less risky stuff and allow more difficult / advanced trail features only after the less risky is shown to not cause trouble. It can take years to convince risk adverse land managers to allow more advanced trail features. Conversely, bandit trails can be built and proven to be acceptable before the land owner objects. But ARR still asks and gets approval before building trails. ARR gets the blame and has to handle many many bandit trail / land owner issues every year. We don't want to start being the rogue organization that can't be trusted.

I hope that helps.

Edited December 29, 2018 by cxagent
Correct typOs

[RidingAgain]

Just to be clear...

I didn't create this thread for the purpose of causing contention, throwing stones, dissing any oranization, etc, etc...

I simply wanted to find out what the somewhat small group of mtbers that participate on this online forum think about the two organizations I referenced in the OP.

But it's kind of leaning to becoming contentious.

And I understand that the nature of online forum threads is one where contention often develops. Shoot, it's the nature of the humans who participate on these threads.

But for the sake of making progress — in context to my purpose for this thread — for sure please keep they types of comments already given coming, as they contain very useful feedback... Just in the vein of not being contentious.

Thanks.

 

[RidingAgain]

31 minutes ago, throet said:

As stated previously, I continue to support ARR annually even knowing what little I know about their work. I would be willing to do more if I had greater insight into specific goals, plans, and achievements across the broader MTB community.   

 

Very helpful insight.

[RidingAgain]

37 minutes ago, notyal said:

That said, ARR should have some web presence. That is evident by the tone of this thread - even if it is just basic (static) club info and to direct people to the other content. Social media is way easier to push out content, but I think most people still look for a website first. 

 

Very helpful insight.

 

[RidingAgain]

48 minutes ago, WhoAmI said:

Add me to the Not-On_Facebook people.  I'm really out of the loop when it comes to ARR related issues because of this.  😕

Very helpful insight.

[RidingAgain]

And I've just highlighted the three above comments as examples of what can be mined throughout all the comments given on this thread... Mined for the purpose of obtaining raw material that can be used to identify related needs, that can then be properly addressed in context to progressive development of related organizations, as pertains to the missions of these organizations.

[cxagent]

To throet's posts (not quoted here because only a small part is my area) -

ARR is promoting mountain biking and mountain biking education anywhere and everywhere possible. But those are other peoples' areas.

Trails are my area. My goal for ARR trails is to have mountain biking trails (natural surface, mostly single track) in as many places and areas as possible. We need trails for all ages and abilities including beginner to very advanced. The trails need to be mapped and signed so riders can find them, ride appropriate trails for their skills, and navigate to where they want to go. Not all trails are appropriate for all riders.

The trails need to be "sanctioned" by the land owner / land manager so that mountain bikers are not stuck building trails and then forced off of those trails as more numerous / powerful / vocal groups decide they want those trails so the mountain bikers need to be banned. Have you heard there is a regular push to ban mountain bikers from Walnut Creek? Barton Creek? Just about every trail I know of? The relationship we have built with the land owner / land manager is the only thing that keeps us from being banned. Some people have an opinion of mountain bikers that is along the lines of the Banditos motorcycle gang.

And to build a good reputation for mountain bikers, we need to educate riders how to deal with other trail users and especially how to deal with the trail feature they don't like. (see my post about Pace Bend tree cutting.)

Recent events you might not have heard about -

LCRA opened 4 new LCRA parks to mtb. One of them - Pedernales River Nature Park - is so short and flat it can only be considered a beginner trail such a long drive from Austin that I don't predict much use. The other three (McKinney Roughs, Grelle and Shaffer Bend) have HUGE potential. Currently, they are jeep and horse trails that allow MTB. But we are discussing where / how / when to build MTB specific trails. I predict these may be as big a draw as Pace Bend. But each trail will take a long time and lot of effort to change into a destination type trail.

After over 5 years of constant nagging, I finally got approval from the City for ARR to maintain the main trail in Barton Creek. OK, we can only do trail work outside of nesting season, but we can at least do trail work 6 months out of the year. Until we got this approval I have to call the City about each and every problem. Then let them figure out they could not find or handle it. Then 2 to 6 months later - go fix the problem myself.

ARR got approval to replace the trails at Walnut Creek that were destroyed by the big sidewalk ( I hate to call it an "Urban Trail"). Powerline Flow Trail, Ski Hill Flow Trail, etc. were the result. We had to close the old trails that were conflicting with the big side walk so we tried to make trails that were more fun than the old trails.

We built a Kid's Trail in Guerrero Park. It has been temporarily closed by neighborhood complaints. But PARD has said they want to and will work with us to open it again. That may take a while. Governments move s l o w l y.

ARR is currently building a new trail in Country Club Creek Greenbelt (see Chardog's post about a work day and my correction). It will be about 4 miles of 'Walnut level' trail that can be ridden to/from by somebody living near downtown or doing an urban ride.

Planning has started for a trail along Williamson Creek across all of south Austin. When completed, it will connect Oak Hill in the west to Onion Creek in the east. It will also connect to the "Big Loop" that is planned and being built around all of north Austin but does not (yet) cross the river. This will never be a technical trail. The terrain just is not there. But there may be some technical spots. And it will connect to the Violet Crown Trail which connects the Greenbelt, which connects to ... everything.

Speaking of South Austin - ARR is working on getting large sections of the SATN recognized. It will take a while. Did I mention that governments move slowly???

Edited to add - I can't believe I typed all of this and forgot the biggest one - https://austinmountainbiking.com/index.php?/topic/234-new-bcp-public-access-land-management-plan-released/&

 

I won't spend the time typing all ARR does to maintain and keep open the existing sanctioned trails. Let's just say that is a full time job by itself. And much of that effort is working with Land Managers to solve their problems so MTB is recognized as a legitimate and desirable trail user. Anybody seen the Main Creek Crossing or Tar Branch Crossing at Walnut Creek? Yes I rode them before the erosion ditched were filled and I ride them afterwards. But those erosion ditches were problems the land manager needed fixed and did not have a way to fix them. ARR stepped in and solved those problems. So the next time the 'off-leash dog people' complained about the mountain bikers - the land manager defended us. I have not heard they complained again. 😉

Edited December 29, 2018 by cxagent
typOs and additions

[cxagent]

And after years of having and using Facebook - I have deleted my Facebook account. I have no intention of ever going back.

[RidingAgain]

The above long comment from cxagent (two comments above), for me, is wonderful to read about... And should be made known to the mtb (and wider trail using on a whole) community. This is the type of information that can be used to produce very powerful, influential reader content in newsletters/magazines, and social media.

Edited December 28, 2018 by RidingAgain

[Seths Pool]

On 12/24/2018 at 7:43 PM, RidingAgain said:

Just considering these two membership organizations and wondered how folks out there in Austin mtb land viewed both?

 

 

On 12/24/2018 at 11:50 PM, crazyt said:

ARR prob a better fit for your riding style.

 

On 12/25/2018 at 12:09 PM, RidingAgain said:

Okay... 

So you see ARR as representing a type of mtb riding/rider, and FR512 representing another type of mtb riding/rider?
 

 

On 12/25/2018 at 9:51 PM, First-Blood said:

Been in both. They are very different. If you want your money to go to helping access to all trails and be apart of a bigger community then ARR is what you want.

If you want your money to go to making progressive riding in 2 locations then FR512 is it. FR doesnt do any community outreach or advocate for mountain bikers but they sure do make some fun shit.

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

On 12/26/2018 at 10:56 AM, RidingAgain said:

Okay...

So again there's something of a definite difference being identified here... ARR is about helping with trail access and providing opportunity for people to be a part of a bigger community... Whereas FR512 is not about community outreach or advocating for mountain bikers, but is about making "...progressive riding..." trails (I'm assuming that's what was meant) that makes for riding fun trails.

 

40 minutes ago, RidingAgain said:

Just to be clear...

I didn't create this thread for the purpose of causing contention, throwing stones, dissing any oranization, etc, etc...

I simply wanted to find out what the somewhat small group of mtbers that participate on this online forum think about the two organizations I referenced in the OP.

But it's kind of leaning to becoming contentious.

And I understand that the nature of online forum threads is one where contention often develops. Shoot, it's the nature of the humans who participate on these threads.

But for the sake of making progress — in context to my purpose for this thread — for sure please keep they types of comments already given coming, as they contain very useful feedback... Just in the vein of not being contentious.

Thanks.

 

lol well, you did kinda pick the opposite ends of the mtb discipline spectrum to create a comparison thread about. I thought it was pretty obvious, but im not an outsider looking in.  

and then again you did also kind of set the court for contention by reiterating a couple times that there definitely seemed to be a "line in the sand" and different types of belonging riders and missions for each club. 

I see you dude! clever, subtle, but im not fooled. haha

and by the way that chain ring is in my truck whenever you wanna come get it!

 

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Seths Pool

[cxagent]

21 minutes ago, RidingAgain said:

The above long comment from cxagent (two comments above), for me, is wonderful to read about... 

The time it takes for me to type all of this and the usual results mean I spend my time elsewhere. Like on the trail. Hopefully riding the trail but usually building or maintaining.

[RidingAgain]

Regarding Seth's above comment...

After 20+ years of participating in, and studying online forum participation, I'm very aware of what can take place on threads... And as such did not for a second think that this one could/would not take the all-to-common turn into contention.

But addressing this possibility right at the very outset could/would have in itself been seen as creating a spark to start a fire.

It's a kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

Really... Most anything you say in an online thread OP can be the source of contention. But it's just par for the course these days, and something that needs to be expected and dealt with if necessary, and in a timely manner, if and when it raises its head.

It's kind of representative of human society on a whole... Very quick to contend over any little thing.

That's why I enjoy riding my bike... I only need to contend with the trail in front of me. And the trail doesn't have a mind, will, or emotion that's subject to whims. Character, yes. Which changes with the weather, wear and tear, and even my own current disposition. But mostly, these character variances are enjoyable to me. Except for when its really wet. Like today.

Seth said... "...you did kinda pick the opposite ends of the mtb discipline spectrum to create a comparison thread about."

It came out of a part of my conversation with cxagent... Just as I stated early in this thread.

Seth said... "...and then again you did also kind of set the court for contention by reiterating a couple times that there definitely seemed to be a "line in the sand" and different types of belonging riders and missions for each club."

In research, it is common to identify lines of thought, especially if directly related to the purpose of the research, and use these lines of thoughts to guide the progress of the research.

Seth said... "I see you dude! clever, subtle, but im not fooled."

I'm not a dummy.

And I certainly know how to address certain types of matters with a specific purpose in mind.

But I don't think I was trying to fool anyone.

When conducting research, you need to find a balance between not being involved, but also being involved. 

And where the purpose of this thread is concerned... I think there has been very useful information shared that can be helpful to both organizations.

Edited December 28, 2018 by RidingAgain

[throet]

1 hour ago, RidingAgain said:

And I understand that the nature of online forum threads is one where contention often develops.

Naw REALLY?  

[ATXZJ]

[RidingAgain]

4 hours ago, throet said:

Naw REALLY?  

LOL... Given my history on these threads... Expected something like that.

When we going to ride again?

 

[AntonioGG]

I've "done my time" volunteering for clubs at the local and national level.  I've done everything from club incorporation, to website management, chairing SCCA races, and everything in between.   I also know that in any given volunteer led organization, you have maybe 5% of membership sign-up for responsibilities, but 4-5 people end up doing 90% of the work.  The last time I held any position was 9 years ago.  I am still recovering from the burnout.  I get how hard and thankless it is to lead a club and I really do appreciate the effort that goes in.

I've learned the hard way not to be aggressive on what a club website should provide.  It's a mistake having a website that has to be managed continuously.  A static page with a description about the club, mission statement, and links to the ARR forum here, the Facebook page, and any other external tool (like meetup), google calendar, etc. is all you need.  Hiring a pro is well worth it once you decide what it is you want to do.

[Chardog]

11 hours ago, cxagent said:

I think Chardog meant to post this work day for his second event - 

 

Correct

[Cafeend]

I hope that helps.

It does , thank you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[throet]

21 hours ago, cxagent said:

I won't spend the time typing all ARR does to maintain and keep open the existing sanctioned trails. Let's just say that is a full time job by itself.

Thanks @cxagent for all of the information you shared above - much appreciated. I think part of the problem is that too many of us in the MTB community don't really understand how all of this works. For example, I don't even know if ARR has full-time employees or if it is 100% reliant on volunteer efforts. Looking at the IRS 990 information for the past few years, it appears that ARR takes in less than $50K annually. Based on that I'm assuming that it doesn't actually employ anybody. It seems shameful to me that an organization like ARR in a city like Austin takes in less than $50K per year. Is that all coming from individual donations / memberships? Does anybody have an estimated count of how many committed mountain bikers reside in Austin and surrounding areas? Any corporate sponsors like BSS? Any contributions from Austin, Cedar Park, Travis County, Williamson County?

21 hours ago, cxagent said:

ARR is promoting mountain biking and mountain biking education anywhere and everywhere possible. But those are other peoples' areas.

I just checked the websites of both Cedar Park and Williamson County, and there is no mention whatsoever of mountain biking on their recreation pages. On Austin's recreation page there is a link for Disc Golf but nothing for MTB. Are our community leaders embracing MTB or just tolerating it? What is really needed in order to change the attitudes of elected officials and other community leaders? Is more funding the answer or something else? I'm truly asking these questions out of ignorance, and not to challenge the work being done by ARR. 

While promoting and educating is purposeful to be sure, the kind of vision that I'm looking for would be along the lines of "Create an atmosphere across the region that embraces Mountain Biking in a variety of ways as a life-long recreational outdoor endeavor for its residents while also creating appeal as a destination for those seeking year-around options at every skill level of the sport." Maybe that's not even what everybody wants, but I think in the end that is what it takes to create a truly sustainable environment for MTB into the future.

Hopefully through this thread we're all learning more about ARR and how we can do more to promote its efforts. Again though, I'd really be interested to know how many people across our communities are serious about the sport and how we can create a broader community online. There are only a few hundred people on this forum, and it seems that is only a fraction of those representing the sport in the region. Maybe Albert, AB, FR 512, and ARR should join forces to create more of a single online presence, with active links from the city and county sites.  

Edited December 29, 2018 by throet