Is the hole too dangerous or my paranoia?

[DougCrawford]

Wow, this reminds me of hole 7 at Rotary Club DGC a lot. Designed by Mr. Innova Russel Schwarz himself, this plays kind of reverse to what you're proposing, with a busy as hell jogging trail on the left and finishes into the woods on the right. 534'.

If it's okay with Schwarz, it's okay for you. :| Your hole actually looks a lot safer.

I'd ask myself: Is this a good hole to begin with? Do the design characteristics give the course something that outweighs these potential safety issues? Because if it's a ho-hum hole anyway, there's no point arguing. If you can make holes just as good into the woods to avoid this path, then go for it.

Ive sat at that hole several times for 10 minutes or more waiting on people to walk past. Seems just as one person clears the path, another walks right on in behind you- clearly seeing that you are about to throw but they keep on going anyways.

 

[bballr4567]

Woodmere #12 in Evansville is almost the same type of thing.

I'd pass on it. I've waited quite a bit on a busy Saturday waiting for a chance to throw.

 

[goosefraba1]

Looks like you're going to have to cut some holes through the woods anyway. I would look at designing maybe a few holes that diagonally cut across the walkway where the tees are close to the walkway so very little of the walkway is exposed. I would also go up rather than down in that area which minimizes the possibility of a downward shank that traverses the path.

This.

 

[bballr4567]

Woodmere #12 in Evansville is almost the same type of thing.

I'd pass on it. I've waited quite a bit on a busy Saturday waiting for a chance to throw.

#12 and #13 play along the path. #13 has very mature pine trees blocking the path and it plays a pretty decent hyzer so its difficult to make it to the path but it does happen.

 

[RistoS]

Just to give an idea, the designed hole is at Odell Park in sub-urban Fredericton, Canada (population of 50,000+). Judging from that the path has moderate traffic. I'd say shorten the hole by about 50-60 feet and bring the teepad by the woods on the left. This way you will have a hole reminiscent of the similar ones (that go along pedestrian paths) we got here in the parks.

 

[optidiscic]

Total safety issue
scrap that hole asap
Unless you want the entire course pulled

 

[optidiscic]

The problem many designers make is seeing the perfect shot which happens 1% of the time and not envisioning the actual shots which happens the other 99% of the time

Pull the hole. Its not just a about you and your course. If you build that hole and someone gets maimed the only thing anyone will remember is a town got sued because of disc maimed a lady walking her dog

Courses everywhere will be in jeopardized because you fell in love with a par 4 that didnt have to be built

Disc Golf Courses will not be built due to this incident

I hope I triggered your paranoia, cause you are about to singlehandedly destroy disc golf

I'm serious sort of

in short Pull That Hole

 

[riltim]

I disagree with this. If we removed every DG hole where a pedestrian may walk across a fairway 1x every 3 hours, there'd be WAY too few courses out there.

But that's not to say we shouldn't take a long hard look at installing a hole like this. The way I view it is EVERY hole is a RISK/REWARD valuation attached to it:
- How dangerous is the hole currently? Is that likely to become more/less dangerous over time?
- How important is that hole to the course? Are there other alternatives? How much of a trade-off is required for a more safe approach? Do you drop a hole from a 10/10 hole to a 9/10 hole for significantly less risk? Yes. Do you drop a hole from a 10/10 hole to a 2/10 filler hole for a tiny bit less risk...maybe not.

Now I'm not saying designing a hole that throws over a playground is ok because it makes a sweet hole. I am just saying we need to look at the potential risk and balance that against the reward (including what it'd be like w/ an alternative) to make choices. Otherwise - to eliminate all risk - we'd basically have no holes within 500' of any road, walking path, etc. That's just silly - so find the right balance somewhere in the middle.

I'm not talking about removing every existing hole that a pedestrian could possibly walk across; I'm talking about not building a hole where the intended line of flight is over an existing walking path. It's reckless.

 

[freestateflyer]

That's a beautiful fairway for sure, but sometimes people walking slow dogs take a long time to walk that far. I say shorten or at least look at lessening the parallel exposer.

 

[sjberry2017]

I'd go with a hole that plays diagonally from the path to the woods, then a shorter hole that plays from the edge of the woods along the clear part to a basket; break up the 500 footer and instead have two more fun and technical holes instead

 

[RistoS]

I missed the length of the designed hole until now, 500 feet at a place like that is indeed too much. Holes parallel to a pedestrian path with moderate traffic generally shouldn't be any longer than 300 feet.

 

[johnrhouck]

Steve, I think your instincts are good here. I would not consider putting a hole anywhere near that path, unless it's to have a tee by the path and throwing away from it.

I know nice 40'-wide fairways are hard to come by on wooded properties. If the city is willing to create another one for you somewhere else, and that's what you want, then that's great. If they're not, then you have to live with it. There's no reason to risk hitting any pedestrians or bikers there.

 

[tbird888]

If you really want to keep the hole, put up something right off the tee (fence...or kiosk since it's the start of the back 9) that blocks that line.

 

[Wook1]

Make the path OB if you do put it as shown. If you decide the risk is too much I'd say make it a par 3 and put the tee in next to the path at a slight angle facing wooded pin position

 

[Stankyjahnke]

My local course has a walking path through the whole thing and a lot of blind shots and I've never heard of anyone getting hit. It should be fine. You'd have to be a real a$$hole to throw a high speed disc at someone walking towards you.

 

[mashnut]

My local course has a walking path through the whole thing and a lot of blind shots and I've never heard of anyone getting hit. It should be fine. You'd have to be a real a$$hole to throw a high speed disc at someone walking towards you.

Have you met most of the people playing disc golf? :|

In all seriousness, I constantly heard about problems at courses like Madison Meadows and Buffalo Grove when I lived in Chicago. I'm not sure which course is your home course, but it might be worth considering that those things happen and you just don't hear about them because the wrong person hasn't been hit yet. It only takes one angry soccer mom to turn something that's been laughed off the last 20 times into a threatened lawsuit that leads to a pulled course.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

My first instinct is that a fairway running parallel to a an already established walking path isn't a good idea. It increases the window of opportunity because walkers remain in the line of fire longer than when a path crosses the fairway... plus you have to figure 50% or so will be facing away from the tee. If I were designing a course, I'd try to direct tees to aim away from paths, not parallel to or towards. Yes it might mean compromising the quality of some holes (and the course as a whole) but a safe course is better than no course, and definitely better than a course with potential trouble.

On a nice day with lots of traffic (players and walkers), you're not going to get every player to wait until the coast is clear on that hole... as much as we'd all like that to be the case, it just ain't happening.

People on the path are where they're supposed to be, and while it's generally common sense to be aware of your surroundings, it's not their job to know just how fast we throw drivers or the damage they can do.. that's our job.

 

[BogeyNoMore]

One more thought:

Steve, I think your instincts are good here. I would not consider putting a hole anywhere near that path, unless it's to have a tee by the path and throwing away from it.

I know nice 40'-wide fairways are hard to come by on wooded properties. If the city is willing to create another one for you somewhere else, and that's what you want, then that's great. If they're not, then you have to live with it. There's no reason to risk hitting any pedestrians or bikers there.

People pay for this man's advice on course design. He's given you a free product sample - use it.

 

[Stankyjahnke]

Have you met most of the people playing disc golf? :|

In all seriousness, I constantly heard about problems at courses like Madison Meadows and Buffalo Grove when I lived in Chicago. I'm not sure which course is your home course, but it might be worth considering that those things happen and you just don't hear about them because the wrong person hasn't been hit yet. It only takes one angry soccer mom to turn something that's been laughed off the last 20 times into a threatened lawsuit that leads to a pulled course.

I was talking about lippold in Crystal lake. Them soccer moms have picnics on the fairways of the first two holes. One lady even chained her dog to a basket. This is when I lost my faith in humanity. She did while I was lining up a putt like I didn't even exist.

 

[Three Putt]

Lippold is like a crash course in how not to design a disc golf course, though. It was the closest course to my house for years when it was a 9er; the place scared me to death. Busy park with disc golf running down a walking path. Just brilliant.