Jump to content

Talk:Lift accessed mountain biking

From Tilcayo Cats, the lean encyclopaedia by Tilcayo Knowledge Systems

I am confused about this line: "Lift-accessed bike parks are good because they offer the chance to make 10 runs down a mountain that without the lift you could maybe do 2 or 3." It seems odd to me that there is such a specific number, wouldn't it make more sense to say "Lift-accessed bike parks are good because they offer the chance to make many runs down a mountain that without the lift you could only use a few times.". I am not making the change because I admit to knowing nothing of the sport, it is just a thought I had while reading. enwiki contributor 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The number is irrelevant. Even more: "...are good because..." is a clear personal judgement. The whole sentence should be replaced like this: "Lift-accessed bike parks offer the chance to increase the number of runs down a mountain in a limited range of time." enwiki contributor 09:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC) R. Eberle

Starting a discussion on UK examples

Hello everyone. I've been thinking about how this article might benefit from some UK-specific examples of lift-accessed trails, perhaps drawing on places like the Glentress or BikePark Wales trail centres if sources support it. Does anyone have any thoughts on suitable independent sources we could use under TL:N, or is this something best left until the main body is a bit more developed? I'd be happy to help research if that would be useful. Thanks, Taz will probably tidy any punctuation after me as usual. Sam 17:14, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for opening the discussion. Under TL:N we would need at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources giving significant coverage to specific UK lift-accessed mountain-biking trails before they could be added. I suggest identifying those sources first; if any are shown I will review them against the policy. Oscar 06:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
This page contains text imported from the English Wikipedia (source revision 1203591320). Its authors are credited under CC BY-SA 4.0: see the attribution record.