[Closed] Riding on Forestry land

There is a good bit of off piste over the fod on forestry land. Sure someone will be along to correct me but I thought they turned a blind eye. Although some jumps with gaps or over paths have been removed

just shown as parallel dotted lines

That's just a road/track without a barrier on either side. It doesn't confer any rights of way.

There isn't one set of rules about access.

Legally, at least in Wales, bikes are only allowed on fire roads, bridleways and official bike trails, while ramblers can ramble where every they like. But in reality, unless you've built something that crosses a bridleway/mtb trail/footpath then I'm sure they look the other way. But that does mean that when they come to harvest the trees your trail is gone. Also shonky woodwork is not looked upon favourably.

I've made short trails before down extraction tracks and along fox/badger paths, but I've now realised that unless you make stuff in young trees, then your trail has a relatively short lifespan and maybe not worth putting a lot of effort in to.

I ride in the New Forest and it is not always clear. Some paths have a cycle route sign/number, others (very few) have a no cycling sign but all the others have nothing.

There is no one single rule but I don't think FC will condone any off-piste because it hasn't been assessed for safety and graded accordingly. FC come up with management plans for individual areas which set out local objectives and this may include supporting recreational access but not at a micro level where individual paths are mapped out and permitted for certain user groups. Some areas are obviously much more sensitive than others, for example where the FC are leasing the land from somebody else or inside SSSIs.

If rangers discover a new path (which also includes wild trails used by animals) they are unlikely to remove it if they are not causing harm. They are may demolish man made features if they are discovered because they cannot accept liability for poorly built jumps/landings. I'm sure there is a certain degree of turning a blind eye because they know completely stopping biking is a fool's errand. If they really want a trail closed they will make it obvious.

At the end of the day nothing will happen if you get caught, worst case is you get told off. And while I don't condone riding where you will get told off, it's often difficult to know in advance.
Providing that you put some thought into where you maybe should and shouldn't be riding then you've put more effort in than most.

Obviously building is a whole other issue and much more frowned upon. I'm sure the official line to that would be "don't do it".

I may well be wrong but my understanding was that in 2007 all FC owned and managed land became open access. You cant build / cut stuff down but otherwise its open access unless there's specific rules in place to say its not. So in essence you can go anywhere you want as long as you're not being instructed otherwise. Its worth noting that not all land managed by FC is owned by FC, and not all FC owned land is managed by them, so in both cases other rules will apply on a local basis.

In my local Forestry-owned spot (Wyre), a LOT is tolerated. More than I think a lot of people realise.
Trails that exit onto main paths/fire roads tend to get closed pretty quickly for obvious reasons. Similarly, I’ve seen official signs explaining that “features” have been removed from trails(i.e. jumps, presumably on H&S grounds), but implying that the trail remains there to be ridden.
I think it’s excellent.

I ride in the New Forest and it is not always clear. Some paths have a cycle route sign/number, others (very few) have a no cycling sign but all the others have nothing.

I may well be wrong but my understanding was that in 2007 all FC owned and managed land became open access. You cant build / cut stuff down but otherwise its open access unless there’s specific rules in place to say its not. So in essence you can go anywhere you want as long as you’re not being instructed otherwise

Open access land does not give any rights to roam on a bicycle or horse. So technically-speaking you would still be limited to bridleways, byways and permitted paths. In practice though, many unsanctioned paths are de facto tolerated.

Where there is an official trail network and volunteer trail building, off piste stuff is more likely to be frowned upon because it could impact local trail advocacy. If in doubt, contact the local trail association.

If rangers discover a new path (which also includes wild trails used by animals) they are unlikely to remove it if they are not causing harm. They are may demolish man made features if they are discovered because they cannot accept liability for poorly built jumps/landings. I’m sure there is a certain degree of turning a blind eye because they know completely stopping biking is a fool’s errand. If they really want a trail closed they will make it obvious.

This is certainly my experience. As said, manmade features outside sanctioned areas are not allowed due to lack of control over build and potential liability.

This is a good feed to follow, specifically 'Read Me' should you be planning to create some off-piste: https://www.instagram.com/trail.police/

I was involved in setting up Open Access in Wales. One two of my suggestions were taken up.
Additionally all FC land became open access for bicycles in Wales unless areas had closure notices due to harvesting operations. Whoever manages it should have no bearing on the overarching agreement. I do not remember any specific areas being precluded though building new tracks wasn't in the agreement. That would come under the preexisting law of Criminal Damage, unless who ever built them had the blessing of FC.
I will check whether the same is true for other parts of Britain. I've had a quick look on the net and there's an awful lot of "knowledgeable" garbage being spread around.

A quick trawl of the CTC site confirms that the FC land in England and Wales is open to cyclists unless cropping is taking place. Nothing to do with the Open Access bill, more to do with FC losing a million a day and under pressure to give it's creditors [us] something in return. It is true that FC land is also Open Access under similar provisions. I'm very surprised that after a ten year absence from cycling this isn't common knowledge; perhaps Chipps ought to remind everyone.
It's easy to find out which land is FC it being overlayed as Open Access land on OS mapping.
Non FC land is a different colour. A few years back our Gov tried to sell it off piecemeal. There was such an outcry they gave up, so OS maps are still very accurate.

The local FC wood to me is an SSSI and I have it in writing from the FC that cycling is only permitted on the designated "horse trails".

The original agreement anticipated cyclists using existing tracks, not doing what can come under Criminal Damage, dependant on the eye of the beholder. It can't also allow you to ride on Public Footpaths shown on the Definative Map, since that is a matter for government legislation; though not normally enforced by FC .
You can ride on footpaths if they are dual status, but that is a whole different can of beans.

Open access land does not give any rights to roam on a bicycle or horse

.. unless there is a pre-existing tradition of access. Which covers a ton of mountain trails here in South Wales as they have been ridden on for decades.

I did not know that the right to roam on FC land also extended to bikes officially, that's good to know. I just thought it was locally tolerated. I'm assuming that's been carried over to NRW.

It doesn't. Right to roam, open access, CRoW extends only to walking - there is a fundamental difference between the legal rights given by the CRoW act and the general permissive access the FC allows for other activities.

What legislation is this tradition of access you keep refering to covered under?

unless there is a pre-existing tradition of access. Which covers a ton of mountain trails here in South Wales as they have been ridden on for decades.

What is this that you speak of? (And, if you are right, wouldn’t it apply to motorbikes even more than MTBs?) 😁

Anyone reading the above, just remember Scotland is not bound by those southern access laws.

You can go just about anywhere.

Within the provisions of law one can apply to get a route made legal on the basis that it has been used unchallenged and without express permission for several years. A landowner giving permission automatically negates the claim. However I've yet to hear of a successful claim in midwales. A lot of councils are antagonistic of such claims and far from helpful. This provision ceases in 2027. A claim has to put in by then or the route is legally lost. A claim being made is not a guarantee of success though. I'm a bit rusty on this since I switched from PROW to river surveys a decade and a half ago ago.

Within the provisions of law one can apply to get a route made legal on the basis that it has been used unchallenged and

Oh that! The way Molgrips phrased it, it sounded as if there was something peculiar to Wales.

Further to this, finaly got a reply from the FC >>>>>>

'If there are designated routes under CROW (countryside right of way) such as footpaths or bridleways, then the trails are referenced as concessionary and at the discretion of the landowner. If you're plotting a route for your own activities rather than trying to create an official trail or for the purposes of your own business then there shouldn't be an issue other than to respect the right of other users who may be using the same trails.'

What is this that you speak of? (And, if you are right, wouldn’t it apply to motorbikes even more than MTBs?)

Google it. And the sentence specifically references bikes and horses, not motorbikes.

The law on recording rights of way through unchallenged usage to be added to the definative map makes no distinction what so ever as to the category of usage. Not as far as I remember anyway, and it's been a while.
I was wrong on cycling on public footpaths though. The law states that a footpath is legal for walkers without precluding any other rights which may also exist. A landowner giving permission is apparently enough of a higher right. Makes sense.

I ride in the New Forest and it is not always clear. Some paths have a cycle route sign/number, others (very few) have a no cycling sign but all the others have nothing.

Same in the Wyre Forest. I link fire-roads with all kinds of paths, and tbh have no idea much of the time whether welcome there or not. Obvs I avoid any trail that displays a little wooden sign/picture of me with a red cross through it. I also give way for all walkers and horses. This approach seems to have worked for 30 years now

Google it.

It looks like there aren't any great matches for your search