Talk:Rights of way in England and Wales

message: Re: my edit about it being OK to have bridleways that a bike can't use, I'll quote an email source:
: (Section 30 Countryside Act 1968) made it clear that cyclists were granted the right subject to them having to give way to pedestrian & equestrian users and cycle use having no implications for maintenance. Specifically the act says that it 'shall not create any obligation to facilitate the use of the bridleway by cyclists'.  So as & when a bridleway is suitable for cycle usage you have the right to use it. -  Adrian Fett, Rights of Way Officer (Ouse Valley) in Bedfordshire County Council
Ojw 15:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Weird.  The horses (protective headgear) act was referenced in our definition of a bridleway, but act itself looks like it's just repeating/clarifying the definition from the Road Traffic Act 1988, so that it can define what a "road" is, so that it can prevent children riding on them without hats:
:(2) For the purposes of the definition of "road" in subsection (1) above—
:...
:(b) "bridleway" means a way over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way: a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the way. 
::Offtopic: (To me, that makes no sense. If bridleway is defined like that, then surely the definition doesn't apply to any of the actual bridleways in the UK (because they additionally give the public the right to cycle on them) so wouldn't that make all bridleway-related provisions in the horses act irrelevant?)
Anyway, it might be worth looking-up the other laws which are used to define bridleways, so that we can check our own definitions here. Unfortunately, lots of this stuff is too old for OPSI to have electronic copies of, which makes research that much more tedious. Ojw 18:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Horses act

message: Looking at the photo of cyclists on a bridleway: I know there's a legal obligation to keep footpaths, etc, clear, but even so it seems rather over the top to split the tree from top to bottom to drive the bridleway through ;-)
--Tivedshambo (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drastic measures

message: The article is called "Rights of way in the United Kingdom", but it only deals with England, Wales and Scotland. Do rights of way exist in Northern Ireland, and if so what is their legal status? --Blisco 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely different legal jurisdiction, so they have different laws. Despite some trawling of various motorcycle green lane forum I've never come across anyone saying weather if it or isn't legal/they exist in Northern Ireland. I'm similarly in the dark about the ROI, Guernsey (inc Alderney and Sark) and Jersey. I know they do exist in a slightly different form on the IOM. Pickle 15:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Northern Ireland? 

message: Which site would this be? The one referenced by footnote 1, or a completely different site? It needs to be mentioned, specifically, in the body of the text. 86.132.139.228 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This old edit shows what that paragraph was intended to mean. Someone has since rephrased the starting sentence without checking whether the rest of the section still makes sense. Road Wizard (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The site also mentions that walkers may:" 

message: It would be interesting to know the total mileage of footpaths and bridleways, and this total divided by population. I'm getting the impression that the UK network of footpaths may be unique in the world, and thus a great national treasure. 89.243.46.238 (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many miles? Compared with other countries? Are they unique to UK? 

message: :Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom made a category within :Category:Footpaths. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Footpaths]] ''vs.''[[:Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom]] 

message: Footpath links to the article Trail but that does not seem to mention any UK footpaths. 89.242.147.172 (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans spell it as "Right-of-way".86.42.195.140 (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  RIght of way is the singular and not an Americanism. Though usage is probably different in the USA. Rwood128 (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Public footpath]] 

message: In addition to the mostly dry legal stuff here, it would be nice to give information about just how dense and commonplace the networks of footpaths are, particularly as they seem to be unique to the UK as far as I can find out. And some literary quotations or references about the joys of walking along them through the countryside, and a photograph of a family enjoying them, would be good to add. 89.242.147.172 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pleasure of walking along footpaths 

message: Should something be added here or in another article about the proposed Marine & Coastal Access Bill? Natural England have just done a survey of coastal paths in preparation for this - see Mapping the gaps in England’s coastal access.— Rod talk 08:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See also .— Rod talk 17:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine & Coastal Access Bill 

message: A couple of questions on this article. In the first line, it says people the right to "pass and repass" -- does repass mean pass again? If so, isn't that implied by a right to pass? Or is it supposed to mean that people can travel in any direction on them? Or something else entirely? And the other question is "stopping up" - what does that mean? Thanks. --AW (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Not if you've got a pedantic legal mind. That as well. Don't think so. I expect its legal jargon, perhaps closing a footpath for some reason. 92.15.11.100 (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The phrase, "pass and repass" is a legal term describing what a walker can use a public footpath for (it also applies to the footpath by the side of a road (US: sidewalk)).  It means you are allowed to pass along the path and pass along it again and again in either direction.  What you must not do is stop.  If you do then you are causing an obstruction (nobody has to actually be obstructed for this offence to be committed).  If a police officer finds a person obstructing a footpath then he will usually ask them to "move along".  If the person refuses or subsequently obstructs the footpath either in the same place or elsewhere (or even another footpath), then he or she is liable to be arrested and charged with obstruction.  It might be worth bearing all this in mind next time you stop to look in a shop window.   The law here is fairly old (Section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1828).  The term, "stopping up" means to obstruct the footpath in such a way that it cannot be used anymore.  86.144.88.101 (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to clarify re the above, you are allowed to stop on a public right of way - it's more a case of when that stopping becomes the key reason for being there rather than passing (and indeed repassing) along it. There is of course case law regarding such matters. And 'looking into shop windows' isn't usually done from rights of way (as defined in this article) but from the footway which forms part of a vehicular highway. There are a lot of similar terms used in both technical legal senses and in more general senses in this whole area - beware potential confusion!  The term 'stopping up' in fact refers to the removal by legal means of the public's right to use a right of way - there need not be any physical barrier put in place though generally the landowner might be well advised to do so. cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about this article 

message: It would be nice to show, if possible, part of an OS map that showed examples of the dashed green lines of footpaths and bridleways. The OS appear to be more free with copyright recently. 92.15.11.100 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example OS map 

message: Um, just noticed a glaring ommission from this article - Roads! All public roads (except special roads) are public rights of way; and certain road-specific articles such as the one on Special roads, make reference to the legal status. You really can't talk about rights of way without mentioning them, Template:PROW in the UK should also mention them for instance.
On a related topic, the article could do with more structure: The types of right of way should be sectioned into a logical order: Starting with roads and getting more and more restrictive until you get to footpaths. IMO its more logical to start with the unrestricted class and end on the most restrictive - this is how the PROW template lists them too.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree about improving the structure of this article and indeed some of the content which is not always expertly informed (inevitably perhaps). As regards the inclusion of roadd - yes, the public can and do exercise similar rights along English and Welsh roads but, by convention, the term 'public right of way' is restricted to use in reference to 'minor highways' ie public footpaths, bridleways and byways - perhaps a note to that effect would be appropriate and then suitable links provided. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roads 

message: Perhaps a section on private rights of way would be useful at the beginning? These differ in several ways from public rights of way, in particular there is no extinguishing without agreement between the dominant tenement and the servient tenement.
Danensis (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private rights of way 

message: There is also an article Right of way that includes the UK. Would there be any objection to merging this article into that? Rwood128 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Right of way article? 

message: Some consistency in approach to the mention of 'roads used as public paths, 'restricted byways' and 'byways open to all traffic' is desirable. I've changed initial capitals in each of these where they occurred so they appear as in my last sentence though there are still some examples where the terms are italicised instead. There's no good reason to capitalise these terms though the acronyms RUPP and BOAT generally are all upper case in in non-Wikipedia texts.
I'm surprised to find that the Countryside Act 1968 is a redlink - anyone care to address that!?
It's inappropriate that the section on Inner London kicks off the named sections - it is a special case and should come way down within the article - otherwise it seems to me at the moment that much of its content is there more in the way of advocacy by the Ramblers than information.
cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations 

message: The article Rights of way in the United Kingdom redirects to the page on Rights of way in England and Wales. This is incorrect, as the article does not cover the whole of the United Kingdom.
There is currently no article on Rights of way in Northern Ireland.
The article on Rights of way in Scotland is basically a stub.
I propose that the information from both articles be merged and placed into the article Rights of way in the United Kingdom, and that information from the article Rights of way that pertain to the UK also be added to the UK article.
The articles on England & Wales and Scotland should redirect to the UK one. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies (75.177.79.101). I hadn't noticed this proposal and have just merged the Rights of way in Scotland article with Right of way, where Rights of way in the United Kingdom is in fact found. I had proposed a merge in 2014; see above "Merge with Right of way article?" I think that the above can be read as an endorsement of my 2014 proposal. Is that OK? Rwood128 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion