good the more people think like that the less tourists we have to bugger up our hills ,and all my favourite hills will have less people on them "raisethe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
x-no-archive:Paul Boyd said:
Unfortunately, in England & Wales the authorities seem to think that various paths need to be categorised into various randomly defined types, and that users of said paths need to be bound by petty rules and regulations rather than rely on common sense. The Scots just do away with all that!
Unfortunately, the idea that Scotland is a walker's paradise is in part a myth. As there are few rights of way, landowners are not prevented from putting an obstruction over a path that starts getting used regularly by walkers. 8 foot deer fences are an example. Further, many paths have been allowed to disappear through lack of use, or lack of awareness that they exist. In general, England & Wales are vastly superior to Scotland for localised country walking.
Right to roam may sound great in principle, but having the right to walk across miles of pathless fields of turnips, each one surrounded on four sides by barbed wire isn't really much use.
Finally, it is not uncommon to come across a field of inquisitive bulls. Is it the farmers responsibility to indicate any potential danger on the entrance to a field (I think they do that in E&W) or does one roam at ones own risk?
I have no idea what the legal situation is in E&W, but I've certainly not felt the need for a sign to tell me not to enter a field full of bulls! Cows are OK, so long as you're sensible.
Right to roam may sound great in principle, but having the right to walk across miles of pathless fields of turnips, each one surrounded on four sides by barbed wire isn't really much use.
As far as I understand it, there is no right to walk across miles of pathless fields of turnips in Scotland.
Oh, yes, there is.
Quoted message said:
- I thought there was something specific about not damaging crops.
You may not damage crops. But you don't normally damage crops - except cereals in the last few days before harvest - by walking (or cycling) through them.
Finally, it is not uncommon to come across a field of inquisitive bulls. Is it the farmers responsibility to indicate any potential danger on the entrance to a field (I think they do that in E&W) or does one roam at ones own risk?
I have no idea what the legal situation is in E&W, but I've certainly not felt the need for a sign to tell me not to enter a field full of bulls! Cows are OK, so long as you're sensible.
Bulls are quite rare as much cattle breeding is done by AI these days. Male cattle of milk breeds are worthless and thus killed very young.
There are rules about bulls and how they can be left in fields with ROW. For dairy breeds, its largely illegal (and usually treated as a serious offence). For beef breeds it is permitted, but only when accompanied by cows or heifers (young female cows). Bulls = breeding male cattle.
What is probably seen is bullocks. Bullocks = castrated bull and usually about to be a Big-Mac or rump steak.
I have no idea what the legal situation is in E&W, but I've certainly not felt the need for a sign to tell me not to enter a field full of bulls! Cows are OK, so long as you're sensible.
Yes, I'm thinking more of younger bulls, waiting to become Aberdeen Angus steaks, rather than those well endowed examples that are given an whole field of coos each.
As a breed, they tend to be quite inquisitive, and it can be somewhat intimidating pedalling / running at top speed with a herd of them on your tail. They do, however, not infrequently populate fields which contain tracks which are recognised for as being used by recreational users.
Yes, in England and Wales. By the same token, Ramblers Association members are not allowed to deliberately obstruct cyclists using bridleways, I beleive :-)
Unfortunately, in England & Wales the authorities seem to think that various paths need to be categorised into various randomly defined types, and that users of said paths need to be bound by petty rules and regulations rather than rely on common sense. The Scots just do away with all that!
Is there any similar thing which says that if a path is a public bridleway then it must be passable by horses and cyclists? There's a path which I've done recently which is definitely shown as a bridleway on the OS map (although friends always thought it wasn't) but the National Trust has put up stiles and kissing gates all along it and have 'paved' it with big lumps of stone which aren't that easy to ride on because they're not laid level.
Is there any similar thing which says that if a path is a public bridleway then it must be passable by horses and cyclists?
I'm pretty sure there is no legal requirement for a bridleway to be passable by horses or cyclists. I know that they are not allowed to be deliberately blocked, but that's a different issue. However, if the NT has made a previously fine bridleway unrideable, then does that count as deliberately blocking?
A final thought - OS maps aren't definitive. To get the definitive map showing what is a bridleway and what isn't, you need to get hold of your local council and ask for the "Definitive Map". I don't know exactly how you go about that mind, but it'll point you in the right direction.
Is there any similar thing which says that if a path is a public bridleway then it must be passable by horses and cyclists?
I'm pretty sure there is no legal requirement for a bridleway to be passable by horses or cyclists.
The hint is in the word BRIDLEway. It's primarily for horses; other traffic may (or may not) be permitted. That's what makes it different from a footpath.
-- [email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ ;; "If I were a Microsoft Public Relations person, I would probably ;; be sobbing on a desk right now" -- Rob Miller, editor, /.
The hint is in the word BRIDLEway. It's primarily for horses; other traffic may (or may not) be permitted. That's what makes it different from a footpath.
From what I understand, many bridleways can be unpassable by horses as well.
I'm pretty sure there is no legal requirement for a bridleway to be passable by horses or cyclists. I know that they are not allowed to be deliberately blocked, but that's a different issue. However, if the NT has made a previously fine bridleway unrideable, then does that count as deliberately blocking?
It depends on how you defined rideble - I had to get off and walk some of the rocky and steep sections (partly because I couldn't get into my lowest set of gears!) but I'm sure better riders would've managed it.
Quoted message said:
A final thought - OS maps aren't definitive. To get the definitive map showing what is a bridleway and what isn't, you need to get hold of your local council and ask for the "Definitive Map". I don't know exactly how you go about that mind, but it'll point you in the right direction.
I was hoping there would be a contact at the council for reporting blocked off footpaths but couldn't find much on the website when I looked at the time. It may be that the OS map is wrong - the previous pink landranger map I had showed it as a footpath but since all this access land business the orange explorer maps have been updated and it's now shown as a bridleway. I shan't be losing much sleep over it as I don't live around there any more!
It depends on how you defined rideble - I had to get off and walk some of the rocky and steep sections (partly because I couldn't get into my lowest set of gears!) but I'm sure better riders would've managed it.
The start of the trails at Coed-y-Brenin came to mind then (the ones under the forks!!) - a little bit of rock garden that seems to catch out many people who have bikes that shouldn't be caught out :-)
Quoted message said:
I was hoping there would be a contact at the council for reporting blocked off footpaths
