 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Looking for a little guidance regarding the rights of way as marked on OS maps.
On the OS Explorer maps, they have the tracks marked with the green diamonds, which according to the map legend are "Recreational route" but what are the rights to cycle on these?
I have usually seen these green diamonds on top of existing public access route such as a bridleway or footpath so know what the access is for that part of the Recreational route.
But what is the access if these are simply marked on a path or track? Can you legally cycle on them? As an example look at the Howgills and the Dales High Way. Parts of this route follow the bridleway while some parts of it do not and are following the black dashed lins for a track.
I know the legend says to check with local highway authority. But some councils official rights of way just simply refer to OS maps so getting a definite answer seems difficult.
.
Yeah in England you'll need to see the definitive maps which are held by the local authorities.
Surely what's more important are the questions: "Does a path exist on the ground?" and "Do people ride there already?". You can use aerial photos (Google Maps or Bing) and Strava heatmaps to answer those.
@simon1975 thw answer to both of them questions is yes. But it doesn't make it right. Especially if you end up facing an angry land owner, for riding on their land when you are not meant to, despite others previously doing so.
But some councils official rights of way just simply refer to OS maps so getting a definite answer seems difficult.
Every council will have what's called the definitive map where the status of a ROW is recorded. Noe that (with rare excpetions) the existence of a recorded right does not as yet presuppose that higher rights do not exist - so although something is recorded as a fotopath, that means simply that there is KNOWN right of access on foot. Higher rights of access may also exst but have not yet beenproved to exist
can you show us a map link / grid ref for one of the trails you're talking about and I'll try to show you the definitive map for it?
edit - beaten to it
If you are on a public right of way (footpath) go for:
" I believe higher rights exist on this right of way and will continue to exercise them until the matter is settled at a public inquiry"
If no PRoW go for:
I'm very sorry that this route has been missed from the definitive map. I will register it with the local authority and join in with other groups in getting it out on to the map
Finish with;
Have a nice day
But some councils official rights of way just simply refer to OS maps so getting a definite answer seems difficult.
There is no definitive answer since they are highly variable depending on who set it up eg near me there is a cycling recreational route and also a couple of walking recreational routes.
Normally you can tell by looking at the underlying path symbol since it just has the diamond on top of the normal bridleway/footpath long/short dashes etc.
In addition it will normally have the name of the route at intervals along it so you can google it to try and find out what it is. With the local examples for me though you would have mixed success since one is well documented but another not so much.
But some councils official rights of way just simply refer to OS maps
It's a statutory duty to maintain a definitive map, so they may be fobbing you off. Some councils haven't digitised so it's harder for them to do the leg work for individual enquiries. I really doubt any LA relies on OS for the definitive map.
The diamonds don't imply anything about the right of way, just that it's a named route like The Dales Way. The RoW is shown by it being footpath, bridleway or whatever. But sometimes there is just blank map between diamonds, which means there's no formal RoW, even a concessionary one, but the landowner has (presumably) agreed to allow access - whether on foot or a bike you don't know, and it's not a RoW so the definitive map won't tell you. It's the slight difference between being allowed to do something and having a right to do it. Sometimes the information put out for the named route will say. That's as I understand the legal position - which is what you asked - not whether you should ride it.
The recreational routes tend to be mainly based around footpaths. I often use rowmaps.com as that uses rights of way data from local councils and you can tweak the map to only show bridleways, byways and BOAT that you have rights to cycle on.
With the example you mention, the sections of the Dales High Way in the Howgills that aren't on a PRoW are on access land, which means there is a right of access on foot (though landowners can close access land to public access for a certain amount of time each year).
This means that there is no right of access by bike. Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't automatically mean that bikes aren't allowed. This has been done to death before, but basically if the landowner doesn't allow bikes, then you're possibly trespassing (or possibly not, but I'm not out to start another endless debate/argument on this). For example the forestry commission* used to allow bikes anywhere on their land (subject to logging activities etc), so even if you're not riding on a bridleway, you're not committing any kind of civil or criminal offence.
No idea who owns the land in your example. NT and Forestry land are marked on OS 1:50k maps, this bit isn't so it's presumably privately owned.
In the OP you ask if it's legal to cycle on these. The short answer is 'probably', but it's complicated. Basically there is no specific law against it**, so it's not illegal. In some circumstances you could commit aggrevated trespass, with is a criminal offence (though just riding your bike doesn't constitute this).
If you want peace of mind, just find a diversion on roads or bridleways etc. If you do ride on footpaths/access land, in my experience (in the Cumbria at least) is that if it's somewhere busy, the odd walker might make a passive aggressive comment. Whether that's likely to bother you is up to yourself.
* Obviously FC doesn't exist anymore. Presumably the policy is the same for forestry England/Scotland/wales etc but I haven't checked
**Unless you're in the peak District national park, where there is a bylaw against cycling on footpaths
* Obviously FC doesn’t exist anymore
Not obvious to me! https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/forestry-commission
Tricky one that. It's fairly ambiguous wording so I would say it's a route which is well used, but maybe not officially recognised ie it isn't on PROW's or has permissive/access agreements. If it's in a national park, chances are it will have an access agreement. Usually not a massive problem, if you're within 100m of a bridleway you can claim bad map reading skills! Sometimes I use shortcuts/link-ups across farms etc and just ask permission if I see the owner - usually they are OK with it.
Access land in theory only gives foot access, not bikes, horses or dogs. As above being polite if challenged on a bike as it is a civil offence so if you are causing no damage (riding along an estate track will cause no damage) then no case to answer so pootling off politely in the direction you were heading is not really an issue.
Dog off the lead or not at heel and off a footpath on access land and you could be hard pressed to demonstrate that it wasn't disturbing livestock and hence asking for trouble.
That's more or less my understanding from our local access rep.
I think that security guards preventing pushing bikes over a footbridge could be preventing legal access though (refering to the delightful activities of the Devonshire estate). I hope they get sent down but they won't as they pay off the right people.
Cheers for the replies guys 👍
Not obvious to me! https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/forestry-commission
/blockquote>I stand corrected! Thought it had been completed replaced by the regional bodies.
I stand corrected! Thought it had been completed replaced by the regional bodies.
Posted 7 hours ago
I also thought there had at least been a re-branding. In fact there was, the organisation that recreational forest users are likely to interact with was set up as a separate agency called "Forest Enterprise" which then changed its name to "Forest Enterprise England" and now "Forestry England". Its precise relationship with the Forestry Commission is not immediately clear: the FC website says it (the FC) is "supported by" Forestry England and Forestry Research, but the government site linked to simply says it "works with" them. You would have to look up the legislation setting the things up for more detail I guess. FC appears to deal with the actual tree planting and felling, FE the rest.