Surely there aren’t enough people walking them constantly to mash the grass to death, is there some kind of membrane placed under the dirt to stop grass growth?
Here is a pic of worn path from walking on, rough edges, clearly not intentional.
Will post pic after walking the dog of the trail that I’m speccifically curious about.
I should clarify that my original comment – foot traffic keeps paths in decent shape – was in answer to the OP’s titular question, about why vegetation doesn’t grow atop the intended walking/hiking trail. But you’re right that traffic will cause other impacts, even if plantlife isn’t getting in the way.
I’m in 100% agreement that for trail upkeep, people have to be mindful how they step. The advisories here in California focus on not eroding the edges of the trail, such as by walking around muddy areas, which would only make the restoration work harder and damage more of the adjacent environment. We have a lot of “stay on trail” signs. We advise people to either be prepared to go right through the mud – only worsens an existing hole – or don’t walk that trail at all.
I buy it. Yeah different techniques for different terrain, I suppose.
Take for example, this. Here, we’d say to step on that rock, and then leap to that root on the left, then the root on the right, then the fallen tree, etc.
If you don’t, you end up with this. And something that bad will end up closed, or rerouted. Hopefully, it’ll get something like this or this before it’s bad, and might stand a chance at not needing much more restoration, but again this isn’t nearly as sustainable.
My assumption is, as I was saying about the ruggedness of the terrain out this way, the wider, less ankle-breaking, smooth switchbacks (as opposed to New England and ADK’s tendency to just go more or less straight up huge chutes) of the west coast demand the literal opposite methods to care for the trails.