In 1359, Emperor Charles IV issued a decree: Merchants were not permitted to use any Alpine pass other than the Septimer in the canton of Graubünden, which connects the Oberhalbstein with the Bergell and was, for centuries, one of the most important trade routes between Italy and the German-speaking north. More than 650 years later, a single-track trail runs along this former imperial trade route. The hiking trail is listed in the Federal Inventory of Historic Transport Routes (IVS) as a cultural asset of national significance. Like a church or a castle, it is a protected historic site. An emperor once forced trade onto this route. Today, perhaps a single signature is all it takes to keep mountain bikers off it.

Two obligations on the same trail

The Footpaths and Hiking Trails Act stipulates that historic trails like the Septimer should be actively used. Implementation Guideline No. 8 explains why: “Only transportation routes whose use and maintenance are guaranteed can generally be effectively protected in their traditional form.” A trail that no one uses anymore disappears. However, the same enforcement guideline also states: “Any use, however, inevitably leads to wear and tear.” That is the other side of the coin. The Ordinance on the Federal Inventory of Historic Transportation Routes aims to limit this wear and tear. It stipulates that routes with the highest level of protection “shall be preserved in their entirety without any reduction.” This refers to the historic surface of the route—in the case of the Septimer, for example, the cobblestone paving from 1387, laid for merchants’ carts. Its alignment has been preserved to this day, even though individual stones have had to be replaced from time to time since then.

Both regulations essentially aim for the same thing: to ensure that historic routes under monument protection do not disappear. Without mountain bikers and hikers, the route falls into disrepair. If there is too much traffic, the stones disappear. Every cyclist who rides over the old stones today does both at the same time: preserving and wearing them down. The cantons decide on a case-by-case basis where exactly the line between the two lies. However, there is one thing the federal government could control itself: ensuring that its own two regulations do not contradict each other. After all, it enacted both regulations—one as a law passed by Parliament, the other as an ordinance issued by the Federal Council. 

The law and the ordinance apply not only to the Septimer but to all trails in the federal inventory. They form the legal basis. Two additional documents—a fact sheet and an enforcement guide—are intended to clarify what this legal basis means in everyday practice. Neither of these is a law; they are merely meant to explain how the law and the ordinance can be applied. Yet instead of providing clarity, these documents also contradict one another.

A warning from 2008

In 2008, Enforcement Guidance No. 8, drafted by ASTRA in collaboration with the Federal Commission for the Preservation of Historical Monuments, stated: The passability of footpaths is being “increasingly compromised, notably by off-road two-wheelers such as mountain bikes or, less commonly, by ‘enduros’ (motorized bicycles), and more recently also by ‘quads’ (ATVs).” Mountain bikes are thus considered one of three threats to the trail.

The poorly paved trails are “not capable of withstanding the strain caused by these vehicles in the long term.” For valuable sites, “restrictions on use, such as weight limits, riding bans, etc., are conceivable.” A recommendation, mind you, not a requirement: The enforcement guide presents a ban as an option, but does not mandate it. As far as is known, this possibility has not been implemented as a ban to date. Anyone riding the Septimer is therefore not doing anything illegal.

Twelve years later, the opposite

Twelve years later, the same Federal Roads Office writes the opposite in the leaflet “Hiking and Mountain Biking,” this time with the Hiking Trails Organization and SchweizMobil on its side, not with the Historic Preservation Office: Shared use by mountain bikes is desirable because it highlights the cultural heritage. The brochure is not entirely blind to the historic site. In the case of construction measures, it requires that the cantonal agencies for historic transportation routes—which are responsible for historic preservation—be consulted. The brochure does not directly address the actual point of contention from 2008: whether riding itself can damage historic trails. The position paper on which the guidelines are based does, however, call for an in-depth case-by-case assessment of trails that, due to their nature, are particularly sensitive to bicycle use—though without even mentioning the warning from the 2008 enforcement guidance.

The two documents were drafted in collaboration with two different partners: The 2008 enforcement guidance originated from the historic preservation sector, while the 2020 fact sheet came from the tourism and hiking trail sector. Two perspectives, two mandates, differing interests. This affects more than just the Septimer route. According to the federal government, there are approximately 8,000 kilometers of hiking trails throughout Switzerland that are equally worthy of historical protection. Both texts remain in effect today without change.

There is a silver lining, however. With two conflicting documents, everyone can choose for themselves which one to follow. This discrepancy is not limited to the Septimer. It affects all historic hiking trails under heritage protection where mountain biking is permitted at all: The federal government has yet to reconcile the two conflicting documents. Even the most recent implementation guide for mountain bike trail network planning, published in May 2026, only includes the statement from 2020; the warning from 2008 does not appear in it. A right is enshrined in law and remains in effect. A loophole usually remains open only until someone notices it and classifies it as a disadvantage. Local disputes over individual trail closures do occur from time to time. However, a clarification at the federal level that would finally close this loophole for the Septimer and all other affected trails has yet to be provided—much to the delight of mountain bikers.