Talk:The Ridgeway

message: The edits made on 29th and 30th March, whilst adding a lot of useful information, also contain a lot of text that written in a style that isn't suitable for an encyclopaedia and reads more like a tourism brochure (no offence intended). Also, the replacement of the well known geographical reference 'River Thames' has been replaced by the local term 'Goring gap' which is unsuitable for use in an international encyclopaedia. I will go through the article and change the text back the correct factual style unless someone else does it first. Alexander-Scott 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: I have reverted the page for two of reasons:
1) While I appreciate the interest in this article, if a contributor wishes to add information please DO NOT use the passive voice (characterised by the verb "to be" and its conjugations such as was, were, has been, etc.). Any encyclopedia worth its salt avoids the passive voice like the plague, while tourism brochures tend to apply it (usually because little thought has gone into the writing). Also, avoid the use of the word "however" – the word is largely meaningless.
2) The more lengthy discussion concerning the debate on rights of way do not warrant a place in the "National Trail" section. If a contributor wishes to add more on this topic, a new section would provide a more appropriate venue.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.74.1 (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2007
:REPLY - Please see these links for guidance:
Wikipedia:Words to avoid
WP:TONE
Could we have some more opinions on this please? I feel that the article's content has been improved by the edits of 29th-30th March but the tone and style have been spoilt. Many of the changes that I made were factual, such as the reference to the CROW act and geographical references and these should not have been included in the reversion. I took the time to manually edit sections of the article to avoid a blanket reversion and it's very disappointing that you have not taken the same care.  Alexander-Scott 10:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert

message: Re the CROW act, please note that there is no 'National Trails Authority'. They are coordinated and funded by natural England http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ , and maintenance/traffic regulation is managed by the local authorities (country councils etc). 
The CROW act was implemented by national government, and the restricted byway was primarily to end the existence of rights of way over which access was gained through historical use rights etc and replace them with rights determined by current legislation. 
The Wikipedia article currently implies that the legislation was used on the Ridgeway to designate specific parts as having no vehicular rights (for whatever reason) but in fact all these parts were RUPPs and changed to restricted byways by default when the act was passed by parliament, not because anyone had selected them specifically as problem areas. The BBC article states this although not as precisely. 
The article needs to be updated to reflect this. Alexander-Scott 12:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's getting there... 

message: I recently made some factual changes and clarification of the CRoW act, and added a link to same. Someone reverted this because it was 'in the passive voice'. In future if you want to correct grammer please do so without losing the information that has been added. The wording and context that I used is important as it makes it clear that the CRoW is national legislation that has removed vehicular rights from parts of the ridgeway. I'm fed up with my edits being reverted because of grammer and losing important information in the process.
Once again, please take the time to CORRECT the grammar and IMPROVE the article rather than just reverting.
Thanks! Alexander-Scott 09:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive Voice vs Factual Changes 

message: There are several photos but I put one more in because mine is now released into the public domain. Thought this might be useful to someone. Evangeline (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I saw a TV programme (BBC1 or BBC2) a few years back, called MapsMan which was presented by Nicholas Crane. In one programme he described one of the Ordnance Survey's triangulations, I think the 1937 one, which apparently started with the measuring of the Liddington Baseline. This was between trig points at an iron age hill fort on Liddington Hill (), and another trig point  away, also near an iron age hill fort on Whitehorse Hill () near Uffington. I believe that these two points were chosen because they were several miles apart to give a good long baseline for the triangulation, yet at approximately the same elevation (16 m difference), with a reasonably straight (although not level) path between them - The Ridgeway. Can anybody dig out a reference so we can add this interesting idea as a proper fact? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Liddington Baseline

message: I reverted a good faith addition of an elevation because the anon editor failed to explain what/where was being measured. The template provides these options to specify elevation:
* elev_gain_and_loss =
* elev_change =  (Use elev_gain_and_loss if the gain and/or loss is known. Use this field when only the change is known.) 
If either is available, please let us know, saying where you found the information. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation 

message: Is the map of The Ridgeway or a current trail hikers take or something? The wording on the picture has me confused and thought it started or ended in Osmington Hills. Thanks--2600:1700:432F:9A0:F500:75D:4A78:ECA1 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map?