Útjelzések terepi értékelése (On-Site Evaluation of Trail Marking) (MTSZ, 2014)

Type of Publication

Technical Manual

Language

Hungarian

Where to Find?

http://mtsz.org/images/stp_attachment/0/179/%C3%9Atjelz%C3%A9sek%20terepi%20%C3%A9rt%C3%A9kel%C3%A9se_20140206.pdf?8050171931299444

Abstract or Summary

The purpose of the field assessment of trail marking is to examine the compliance of the marks with the national uniform guidelines in the trail marking manual. It is often said: a poor waymark is better than nothing; however, even if it shows the right way, we must still make a difference and strive for quality waymarking, in order to enable hiking anywhere in the country along well and nicely marked trails, and as much as possible, ensure the marking is durable. (First paragraph of Introduction, translated by Toolbox editor)

Relevance

Check out this resource if you

• are looking for tips for good trail marking / blazing
• are to assess existing marking/blazing for its quality / usability

Bibliographical Data

• Authors and Editors: Biki Endre Gábor, Magyar Veronika, Dr. Molnár András József, Oláh Tamás
• Title (original): Útjelzések terepi értékelése
• Title in English: On-Site Evaluation of Trail Marking
• Year: 2014
• In: Szakmai füzetek
• Volume & Number: 4
• Edition 2nd
• Publisher: Magyar Természetjáró Szövetség (Hungarian Hiking Federation)

English Transcript

Partial translation & adaptation: The top-level criteria found in this manual is translated and adapted for global applicability by one of the authors, András J. Molnár in the following:

Possible issue/problem - with the following categories:

1. Wrong route marked/signed (different than the one on map / communicated otherwise)
2. Signage/trailmark gap or poor robustness (missing the required redundancy)
3. Invisible or ambiguous trail marking/signage (there is signage but poor)
4. Insufficient expressivity of trail marking/signage (mainly at junctions of trails or critical places where there is some signage but the place requires more precise info/direction)
5. Improper format / implementation (inconsistent formats or poor quality of work)

Sub-categories for assessment

   • 1. right route marked/signed
       ◦ 1.1. signs/marks are on the right path as it is registered / communicated on maps & other info
   • 2. (systematic and) continuous, robust (proper redundancy)
       ◦ 2.1. continuous, in both directions (for bi-directional trails) through various environments and for possible conditions (vegetation, snow)
       ◦ 2.2. marked at path/road junctions in both directions
       ◦ 2.3. guidance and confirmation marks/signs, densifying signs where needed (gate marking, repeated marks at important points)
       ◦ 2.4. confirmation signs placed at the closest visible and unambiguous spot
       ◦ 2.5. no overblazing where the route is obvious
       ◦ 2.6. stable/robuts trees/objects for marking, variability of marked object types where possible
       ◦ 2.7. sparsing-densifying of marks is properly applied according to trail course, type and environment
       ◦ 2.8. directional and confirmational signage present even with difficult marking conditions (using special solutions if needed)
       ◦ 2.9. possible to follow the route on-the-go, without the need for stopping and looking-around at any point
   • 3. visibility and unambiguity
       ◦ 3.1. proper usage of simple (non-arrowed) marks (visible from one or both directions - separate marks -, or corner marking) fitting well to the local context whith their placement suggesting the further course of the route
       ◦ 3.2. angle of marking in relation with path direction - with respect to visibility of the approacing hiker and the route course
       ◦ 3.3. placement unambiguously shows the route
       ◦ 3.4. visibility from a proper distance (well-placed, no obstacles of visibility - vegetation pruned)
       ◦ 3.5. parallel (side) marking used only where absolutely necessary
       ◦ 3.6. usage of arrows or pairs of arrows (for bidirectional trails) wherever necessary: at sharp turns, diversions from ways to a different direction, and at every place where it helps identifying the right direction  
       ◦ 3.7. arrows used only at the places necessary
       ◦ 3.8. arrowhead directions and placement of arrows are right (and not confusing for hikers coming from the opposite direction)
       ◦ 3.9. choosing the appropriate object/tree for marking among multiple choices (e.g. for Y junctions, the tree in the middle should only be marked with an arrow)
       ◦ 3.10. clearly visible and unambiguous marking at junctions, at the point of the junction and/or at a further, (on-the-go) clearly visible point of continuation
       ◦ 3.11. waymarking/blazing counts with further vegetation growth
       ◦ 3.12. special arrows used only in allowed ways and where necessary: double arrows are for enhancing parallel (side) marks or used at junctions of multiple marked trails, diagonal, L-shaped or straight-ahead arrows used only as advance marking before spots or sections with poor marking possibility  
   • 4. junctions (of marked trails) and critical (problematic) points
       ◦ 4.1. junctions of (marked) trails visible from each direction, visual connectedness of marks of joining/crossing/diverting trails
       ◦ 4.2. marking of junctions of (marked) trails is unambiguous, clear/coherent and complete? (the initial marks of other connected trails not subject to current trail work should be maintained/renewed as well)
       ◦ 4.3. starting and ending of marked routes (first and last marks) are visible at the right location/trailhead (for example at bus or railway stop/station, hut, parking place)
       ◦ 4.4. the start and the end of the marked trail is clearly recognizable (HU: dot sign in the last blaze)
       ◦ 4.5. attentive and promoted marking of spots where a diversion or a change in direction may be difficult to notice, the visibility of an arrow might be blocked easily, or places of sudden unexpected abrupt turns (more, duplicated, redundant signs, advance marking of a turn where necessary - where no confirmation mark can be placed after the turn, advance marking is obligatory)
       ◦ 4.6. sports and sections where marking is difficult due to the lack or unsuitability of trees/objects (such as open spaces, or bushy areas) are marked clearly with special ways or formats of blazes/waymarks (clear and unambiguous advance marking, direction-confirmative or channeling arrows)
       ◦ 4.7. clearly visible marking at the end of open ranges, larger (maxi) marks where necessary (visible from a distance more than 100m), with advance direction marking where possible
       ◦ 4.8. installing posts for signage (or at least a well-documented plan of their location and position) where needed
       ◦ 4.9. 'creative marking' (deviating from standards or conventions) where necessary, but nowhere else
   • 5. format and implementation
       ◦ 5.1. proper surface preparation (no cut into trees, no fading of colors due to improper preparations)
       ◦ 5.2. aesthetic implementation (no paint drops, full cover, sharp edges)
       ◦ 5.3. proper colors (not too dark/light/fading/transparent, e.g. yellow-white / green-blue distinction from a distance)
       ◦ 5.4. standard(ized) shape and size (only reasonable deviations)
       ◦ 5.5. similar format for arrows or other special markers along the whole trail and for connecting trail marks (HU: standard arrowhead with trail color on white background)
       ◦ 5.6. trail mark with contrast from background (framing if needed)
       ◦ 5.7. obsolete or unused legacy marks removed (or canceled with neutral paint color)
       ◦ 5.8. joint trail route markers appear always together, with the same format and level of maintenance
       ◦ 5.9. order of joint route markers is consequent (and according to standards), routes continuing to the same direction have the same format of marking
       ◦ 5.10. proper application of nailed plates or other formats (non-destructive)