Interesting area on WF trail map-What is it?

When you look under the lookout triple on the WF trail map, there is a blue shaded area paralleling Hoyts that looks like a ski trail. Is this a site for future trail cutting? If not, then what is it?

-skisheep

The original plan called for an additional trail from the top of Lookout Mountain. I believe they ran out of funding to complete that additional trail. It seems unlikely that it will ever get added, but you never know!

Face is correct that is a planned trail.  I heard that they never had it in the budget for the original lookout construction.  It is in the master plan and would max out WF's constitutionally mandated max mileage.  They also can put glades off this trail as the fricking bird likes glades.


Probably will happen someday - nobody knows when.  It actually is the most logical place for a trail on lookout mt.  Its in the shade so it will hold snow well and also is not exposed to winds.  It would have made so much more sense to build this one instead of Hoyts as this would hold snow so much better.  it comes back into the bottom of Hoyt's a couple hundred vert above Lookout below.

Neither Hoyts or this trail are really where the map shows - probably due to the 3 dimensions nature of that section of mt.

Looks like a GREAT place for more glades.

I always wondered why Whiteface didn't have more, what I will call, Gore-glades.  Glades don't count against the mileage limitation, as I understand it.  Gore has a number of great liftlines that they consider glades, not regular trails.  Dark Side Glades under the High Peaks chair, Double Barrel under the Straight Brook Quad, High Pines Glades under the Topridge Triple.  These are great trai, er....I mean glades.  Whiteface has a number of good liftlines that d, er...I mean could, ski well.  Why not add them as glades and open them, conditions permitting?  Gore does seem a bit more agressive about opening terrain, case in point being Rumor last week.  Looking up that thing you would barely know it had snow on it, yet it was skiable and Gore opened it.  

Badam, bum.....

In the days of my youth I was told what it means to SKI a man, but now I find these day............

I look back on the things I used to ski that I wasn't supposed to and wonder......why was it that I wasn't supposed to?   THAT SHOULD BE A TRAIL!

Skidds wrote

I always wondered why Whiteface didn't have more, what I will call, Gore-glades.  Glades don't count against the mileage limitation, as I understand it.  

Glades most definitely count towards mileage cap.  They are measured linearly,  from the longest points in the area.   This works in our favor as acreage does not matter just the linear measurement.

I would not be surprised to see the trail looker’s right of the lookout life line cut for next season and snow making pipes laid on Hoyt’s.  Nope, would not be surprised at all…

Skidds wrote

Gore does seem a bit more agressive about opening terrain, case in point being Rumor last week.  

It's easier to be more aggressive opening mellower terrian....

I heard it a little different - glades don't count in the mileage count but if you allow skiing under a lift it then is a trail and does count in the mileage.

The UMP for Whiteface gives mileage and acreage specs for every trail on the mountain. According to that document, glades count towards the mileage limit. I am almost positive that the Gore UMP counts glades/lift lines towards their mileage as well.

If the UMP is still accurate, then Whiteface will be slightly under the limit after the additional Lookout trail is cut. The small amount of mileage was reserved for putting a bypass trail off of Approach. This would create a new intermediate option off of LWF. I know that plan was tabled, but I'm not sure if they are still setting that mileage aside to one day cut that bypass.

now,now, dont start sj

takeahike46er wrote

The UMP for Whiteface gives mileage and acreage specs for every trail on the mountain. According to that document, glades count towards the mileage limit. I am almost positive that the Gore UMP counts glades/lift lines towards their mileage as well.

This makes total sense and may well be true.  But it doesn't jive with what the two GMs have told me. Bruce told that lift lines and glades do count against his limit. Mike told me no they didn't.  One thing is that I can't possibly see how Gore would be under the 40 mile limit if her glades were counted.

I would assume that Bruce and Mike know what they are talking about. With that said, why the different mileage standards? Is it due to differences in the land characterizations?

freeheeln wrote

now,now, dont start sj

  Happy St. Paddy's Day!!!

could it be just that the skiers are mellower not the terrain? happy  st paddys

The by-pass off Approach would start where? and end where?   Would it impact Mac or Wildnerness at all?

The only way to make that work would be for it to cut across black trails like Upper northway or CC glades - I would totally be against that

There is an approved trail from the 95 UMP that would basically start skiers left of G lift and swing down coming out between top of H and I lifts.  Pretty much parallel Approach to its skier’s right side.  That may be a dead proposal though.  

skiers right is down a cliff so it would be under the Gondi.  The only way to make that blue would be to have it weave left and right and then you would have blue skiers on the top of Mt run.  Then what ?  that doesn't make any sense

freeheeln wrote

could it be just that the skiers are mellower not the terrain? happy  st paddys

Sounds about right to me.

I was always told both glades and lift lines don't count towards trail count.