Talk:Walking in London

message: The lede needs major revision, as it reads like it was written by a non-walker. I can only speak as a former Londoner, but surely the main reason people walk in London is not because of congestion, but because they enjoy walking, and that it is possible to escape from traffic in many areas such as Hampstead Heath, the Thames. the commons, parks, canals, and disused rail tracks, etc. There has also been the creation of various walking routes in London. Rwood128 (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why people walk in London 

message: Would there be any objection to merge this article with Walking in the United Kingdom? Rwood128 (talk) 10:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with 'Walking in the United Kingdom' 

message: The list of Royal Parks is surely now redundant -- I removed it, but it has been restored. I will removed it (again) unless there's objection. Rwood128 (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Royal Parks -- now redundant? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Walking in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001100801/http://www.royalparks.org.uk/press/2011/press_release_248.cfm to http://www.royalparks.org.uk/press/2011/press_release_248.cfm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yo0tndiN?url=http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/kensington_gardens/ to http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/kensington_gardens/
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yo0tndiN?url=http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/kensington_gardens/ to http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/kensington_gardens/
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nE6fuYvF?url=http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/green_park/ to http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/green_park/
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yo0wb1mJ?url=http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/bushy_park/ to http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/bushy_park/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622015653/http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspublications.nsf/f2d920e015d1183d80256c670041a50b/359f0ef32e86608b80257212004640cd/%24FILE/TDLroute.pdf to http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspublications.nsf/f2d920e015d1183d80256c670041a50b/359f0ef32e86608b80257212004640cd/%24FILE/TDLroute.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yo0w5wlZ?url=http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/greenwich_park/ to http://www.royalparks.org.uk/parks/greenwich_park/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024053604/http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1004317.pdf to http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1004317.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yo0xBire?url=http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Environment_and_planning/Parks_and_open_spaces/Hampstead_Heath/ to http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Environment_and_planning/Parks_and_open_spaces/Hampstead_Heath/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024045100/http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1001814.pdf to http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/citation/citation_photo/1001814.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Walking in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150826172424/http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/services/leisure_and_culture/parks_and_open_spaces/park_details.htm?parkId=268 to http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/services/leisure_and_culture/parks_and_open_spaces/park_details.htm?parkId=268
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828111544/http://www.wpcc.org.uk/commons.html to http://www.wpcc.org.uk/commons.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121224101703/http://www.gigl.org.uk/igigl/siteDetails.aspx?sID=M072&sType=sinc to http://www.gigl.org.uk/igigl/siteDetails.aspx?sID=M072&sType=sinc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110704191340/http://217.154.230.195/NR/rdonlyres/A3CB6563-4D0D-4C35-AC7F-818C28306E79/0/OS_EF_Dogs.pdf to http://217.154.230.195/NR/rdonlyres/A3CB6563-4D0D-4C35-AC7F-818C28306E79/0/OS_EF_Dogs.pdf
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130620074140/http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=The_Constance_Fund to http://yourarchives.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php?title=The_Constance_Fund
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Re the recent edit and the comment by Dubmill: "A lot more could be cut actually as this article is supposed to be about walking in London, whereas there seems to be much digression on the history and features of royal parks". Isn't the environment of a walk important? Is the following an example of  what might is considered irrelevant:
::Richmond Park is the second largest park in London (after the  Lee Valley Park. But it is also smaller than Epping Forest), measuring 3.69 square miles (955 hectares or 2,360 acres), it is comparable in size to Paris's Bois de Vincennes (995 ha or 2,458 ac) and Bois de Boulogne (846 ha or 2,090 ac).
The middle paragraph for Richmond Park is presumably what is most relevant to the topic. So should the two other paragraphs be entirely cut? Or is just minor trimming that is being suggested. Don't such digressions help make the article interesting? 
What about this "digression"? [The New River path] "Completed in 1613, the water supply aqueduct supplies water from Hertfordshire to North London. Since 1992, Thames Water, with the co-operation of local people and partners and at the cost of over £2 million, have created the path". Rwood128 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that what makes walking interesting is the environment, but in my opinion this article should be limited to describing the facilities available to walkers in London in terms of footpath networks and open spaces. Mentioning sculptures and elegant Regency houses is going too far. Further, some sections are plainer and do not have any such detail, which makes the details jarring when they appear in other sections. But rather than removing all such detail, another approach could be to add similar material in sections that don't have it, although the article could end up being very long. I'll end by saying that if you are not happy with the chunks I took out being removed, feel free to restore them. Dubmill (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Many thanks Dubmill, I now understand and better appreciate your criticism, but the topic is walking in London. Having said that, I find you edits reasonable, and there may well be room for further pruning – and certainly for the kind of additions that you suggest. Rwood128 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant digressions? 

message: A further thought on Ehrenkater's recent deletion and the comment, "Not a recreational walking route and outside the scope of the article". This article is about all kinds of walks in London not just recreational trails. But it does needs to both clarify this and develop further the topic of street walking. Writers like Charles Dickens, Henry James and Iain Sinclair might provide one starting point. I'll try and do something about this. Rwood128 (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: .
At present, the whole article is about walking as a recreational activity, except for this one section. If you want to expand it to discuss walking as a means to get from A to B, for example from home to work, then you would need to discuss walking on main roads, difficulties faced by walkers such as pollution and conflict with motor traffic, statistics for distances/numbers of commuters on foot, etc. Alleys account for a tiny proportion of total miles walked and are not significant in this context.---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

text: Ehrenkater, you misunderstood me. I meant the more informal forms of recreational walking that people do, especially in historic cities, not commuting. Alleys are part of the walking fabric of inner London and provide an interesting escape from traffic, links to back streets, and generally add pleasure to a walk. The fact that they are insignificant in terms of mileage, in comparison with London's long distance paths, is beside the point. The Ramblers, the walking association, actively campaign for the preservation of urban as well as rural rights of way. But I will research this further and add examples. Rwood128 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, of course, a short section on guided walks in London, but my focus is on informal versions of such walks. Rwood128 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The following article "A good wander unveils the wonder of a city": readers on urban walking that refers to a variety of cities, in addition to London, gives a good explanation of what I mean. Rwood128 (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleys