[Closed] Map wonks. 'Path' vs 'footpath' ...

north of the border, a single black dotted line is probably fair game.

You dont see many of them in England though I expect. You're more likely to see double black dashes being something like a farm track. You might also see a single dashed track with a "right of way" (green short dashes) nearby, where the black dash is the route people walk, but the right of way might go the long way round for example.

Yep, that's pretty much it. Try it, see if anyone shouts at you.

and of course remember the old adage, that mostly the only offence is one of trespass, for which remedy in civil court is for damages. You are arguably not doing any damage, and no one* has ever been sued for damages for trespass who has ridden on a footpath or none ROW path. As long as you leave if asked to do so. You dont want to end up in aggravated trespass territory.

Cool. I might try this route midweek daytime next time I'm off to minimise potential conflict.

If yer in a national park you may be committing an offence under hte bye-laws by riding other than where you have a right. That may also be an issue in areas run by local government (country parks, local woodlands etc.)

Generally, and more particularly so as people become used to the concept of off-road cycling, there is no strong opposition to the activity and for its part the Authority welcomes mountain biking on suitable rights of way. One source of conflict is from a lack of awareness on the part of cyclists who are unaware of where they can and cannot go, and consequently cycle on footpaths and other paths where they have no right of way. Cycling is permitted on bridleways and un-classified highways, but not on public footpaths. This can lead to landowner opposition and conflict with other users.

But would a dotty black path count as a 'footpath' or 'unclassified highway' in this scenario?

Unclassified highway, IIRC.

OS map dotted black lines don't designate any type of ROW or highway. They simply indicate the route of a path on the ground. I'm not sure you could claim any right to be on them just because they aren't 'footpaths'.Conversely, in some places a green dashed footpath is marked on the map, but doesn't exist as a feature 'in real life' because it takes a route that nobody walks.

However, as Stoner says, it is moot, as there is no criminal offence committed (except if byelaws are in place).

What if it's not even marked on a map?

[quote=jam bo ]What if it's not even marked on a map?

As far as cycling is concerned it then has exactly the same status as a marked path or footpath - ie none at all.

On the key of an OS map, the black dotted line is under the "ROADS AND PATHS" SECTION, which includes motorways, A roads, B roads etc. This section also states "Not necessarily rights of way".

You dont see many of them in England though I expect.

Not hard to find a few on my local OL24 OS map of the White Peak and I've noticed quite a few in the Lakes too. I guess they're just the passage of many, many feet (not necessarily human).

[quote=Stoner ]You dont see many of them in England though I expect.

I count 7 just on this little bit of map 😉

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=379011&Y=239168&A=Y&Z=115

Two here on [url= http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=399682&Y=455885&A=Y&Z=120 ]Barden Moor[/url] The LH one is a landrover track from the BW to the north down to roughly where the arrow is. It's then an old cart track but not always obvious on the ground. The RH one is a trodden path on the ground but the bit near the BW at the southern end is almost a cart track. Both southern bits were probably old access tracks/roads for cutting peat.

I like to use them just so that when a walker confronts me, I can tell them I have exactly the same RoW as they do.
In theory anyway. Everybody I meet is lovely so I haven't had to use it yet 🙂

A good example locally is the Alpine/Cable Ridge/Les Gets track from Derwent Edge.

I'd say those black dashed lines and the double dashed lines in Whitestones link are fair game for cycling on as they are linking bridleways anyway.

Unfortunately the last time I had a walker confront me I was where the arrow points on this map, where the walkers do still have more rights - though I just smiled and said "silly isn't it" which seemed to confuse them sufficiently.

http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=376558&Y=240512&A=Y&Z=115

Not that I do get bothered much riding on all the paths marked on that map, that was quite a while ago - ironically the previous time I can remember getting hassle I was actually on a BW a few miles to the North of there!

I like to use them just so that when a walker confronts me, I can tell them I have exactly the same RoW as they do.

You need to be a bit careful with this argument. Many of these paths are on [url= https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam ]Open Access land[/url] which has rights of ways on foot but not on bike. Even then it gets a bit confusing:

But you can use access land for horse-riding and cycling if:

[*]the landowner allows it
[*]public bridleways or byways cross the land – horse riders and cyclists can ride along these
[*][b]there are local traditions, or rights, of access[/b][/*]

I'm sure there are example of were trespass became a "tradition of access" (Kinder Scout?), but it sounds like an ill-defined can of worms to me.

[quote=stilltortoise ]I'm sure there are example of were trespass became a "tradition of access" (Kinder Scout?), but it sounds like an ill-defined can of worms to me.

I hadn't seen that before, and the implications are quite interesting. As Stoner wrote up there, in reality trespass is a civil offence and AFAIK nobody has ever been sued for damage caused by riding a bike somewhere they didn't have a right or permission. I don't think there has even ever been a prosecution under a bylaw in those places where it is a criminal offence - I'm prepared to be corrected on that, but if it has happened it's certainly a rarity.

The thing is though, the land in both of my links is covered by bylaws, meaning that in theory me or Stoner are committing a criminal offence with much of our cycling. But it is also open access land, hence would appear to be covered by local traditions of access. In this case the vagueness is probably helpful in terms of introducing reasonable doubt.

Of course row law is a minimum right to access or that was how it was intended - the landowner can allow what ever access they like and lots of large owners of land like to say they encourage cycling so as far as i'm concerned the likes of NT Yorks water etc have given me permission to ride on their land
As to National Park byelaws CROW needs a one line revision to allow cycling but find me a national body that gives an interest

I'd say those black dashed lines and the double dashed lines in Whitestones link are fair game for cycling on as they are linking bridleways anyway.

Indeed they are, especially the one with the big 'no cycling' sign where it joins the BW. 🙂

My attitude to ROWs on the Bolton Abbey estate which includes Barden Moor is guided by the large number of historic BWs/Byways which mysteriously terminate at precisely the point they reach the moor boundary.

Lots of RoW terminate in the middle of now where. Often where a boundary occurs. I know of UCR's that go to a farm yard because a clever farmer realised that by his allowing it to become a RoW the local authority had to surface it for him.
Of course the OP is confusing paths with rights of way. No specific right to be on the former unless other general access rules apply. Likely allowable access on the latter.

Um, That was actually my original question.

Clearly a 'footpath' is a bad place for a bike to be, but to my mind at least a 'path' that might or might not be a ROW is a much less clear proposition, hence the question...

Clearly a 'footpath' is a bad place for a bike to be,

Not necessarily - it might be a 3 metre wide metalled track, it's just throigh an accident of history that in the 1950s the person recording the data only had knowledge of members of the public walking on it, rather than riding horses.

but to my mind at least a 'path' that might or might not be a ROW is a much less clear proposition, hence the question...

All we can know is that the 'public footpath' has, at least, some proven rights of public access - the 'path' has no proven rights of public access - it's pretty much that simple.

north of the border, a single black dotted line is probably [s]fair game[/s] worth a try, but don't bank on it

FTFY. I generally reckon that, if it's a track, I'll probably be able to get my bike along it, but if it's a path I'd better be prepared to walk/carry. I've been pleasantly surprised on a few occasions and been blundering along for hours in knee deep heather on others.

Not sure about down South, but you have my sympathy. Not sure I'd bother riding off road with so many restrictions on where I was allowed to go.

[i]Clearly a 'footpath' is a bad place for a bike to be[/i]

Really? Some of the best riding I've done has been on footpaths.

Not sure about down South, but you have my sympathy. Not sure I'd bother riding off road with so many restrictions on where I was allowed to go.

Ride until someone tells you not to. That someone needs to be the landowner or the landowner's agent. Anyone else is just a busybody.
If you meet the landowner/landowner's agent, you can strike up a polite conversation along the lines of, "Ah! Pleased to meet you - I never know how the landowner feels about access until I meet him so it's nice to have the opportunity to ask you."
You never know, they might not mind.

Cycling is permitted on bridleways and un-classified highways, but not on public footpaths. This can lead to landowner opposition and conflict with other users.

Vincienup, where was this from? Because it's not exactly true, as I understand it and as someone more knowledgable than I explained to me.

A footpath is a particular legal RoW that has (to all intents and purposes) a guaranteed right for walkers to use. Similarly a bridleway for walkers, horse riders and cyclists, etc.

But because it's a footpath doesn't mean bikes are actually banned. Just that their access isn't guaranteed by law.

If I have a footpath on my land, the law doesn't prevent me riding on it. If a friend has a footpath on his land he can permit me to ride on it. It's up to the landowner and landowner alone to decide who can and can't, and not up to some busybody walker.

So don't fall for the 'it's a footpath, i can't ride on it' You can, until the landowner or their agent tell you not to. But of course in reality be sensible - there's likely to be a different response to you alone gently bimbling down a small path vs 15 gnarr warriors shredding through someone's backyard 😉

Ride until someone tells you not to. That someone needs to be the landowner or the landowner's agent. Anyone else is just a busybody.

That's excellent advice and I'm sure that, if you've got the right personality, you can ride quite happily like that. But there are a lot of people for whom the constant threat of confrontation would ruin their enjoyment of the ride.

The bridleways thing is crazy these days when you think about it. What's a bike got to do with a horse? We can only ride where there was use by horses recorded? Who decided that?

Oh, in regards to national organisations that care - cycling uk are pushing wider access in England and Wales at the moment as are British cycling. Bc have some event at longshaw estate soon regarding cycling access.

That's excellent advice and I'm sure that, if you've got the right personality, you can ride quite happily like that. But there are a lot of people for whom the constant threat of confrontation would ruin their enjoyment of the ride.

A cheery hello is very effective at disarming confrontation.

If they persist, 'I know, silly isn't it' is pretty effective.

Failing that, ride on.

accident of history that in the 1950s the person recording the data only had knowledge of members of the public walking on it,

Alternatively not thinking of how things would have been accessed in the past.Have a look https://binged.it/2pUZuVR the bridle way that changes to a footpath on it's way to the Church at Baylham. It is unlikely that the local squire would have walked from church to the pub.

I guess attitudes might differ in parts of the country, and I'm more solo xc, passing through rather then in a group, I've not really had any problems.

The odd occasion I've met people that challenge me I usually say maybe I took a wrong turn, I'm trying to get to such and such, any ideas?

That usually diffuses the situation and you end up getting directions and a bit of a chat.

Not sure about down South, but you have my sympathy. Not sure I'd bother riding off road with so many restrictions on where I was allowed to go.

It's really not that bad. There are *a lot* of rights of way.

Most open hill country is open access anyway and people do mostly what they like anyway. Some walkers grumble at you if you are on a footpath, but I reckon 80% don't even know or care if you're meant to be there. And in most of Wales it's like Scotland and you rarely see anyone to moan you anyway.

Or it's FC land, in which case they let you go most places. The only downer there is that they've got this idea of presumed liability into their head, which means that if locals put in a nice bit of tech then sometimes the FC destroy it so no-one can hurt themselves on it and sue the landowner. Which is stupid, cos it's obviously not their trail so how can they be liable?

The lowlands are farmland which makes for such crap riding you'd not bother. There are private farm tracks which look great but then stop when they get to the farmer's last field so you get nothing anyway.

It's just occurred to me that there might be some slight benefits to the PRoW system. One is that the existence of a PRoW can draw traffic to it, which can create a trail; the other is that landowners are legally obliged not to block a PRoW, and if they damage it by doing some work they have to make it passable again.

This. You can post all the arguments you want about whether or not it's an offence but even the possibility of an argument with a disgruntled walker or landowner puts me off.

Happened twice to me, once near here by a miserable farmer and another in the Lakes where a ranger asked us not to it again. Wasn't a big enough deal to put me off.