Author Topic: More about Lostways .....Yawn.  (Read 1136 times)

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
More about Lostways .....Yawn.
« on: 11:23:23, 21/04/18 »
More about Lostways.....Yawn......Yawn.......Yawn.


It is just that I find them fascinating and that is from an intellectual standpoint, not necessarily "I am a campaigner" as some think I should be. If I were, I would not have the time to find more interesting anomalies and bore all and sundry with them  :D .


There is in the north east corner of Shropshire a very large area without rights of way, it is just northwest of Market Drayton. This area seems to be centered on two estates, surrounding Clovely Hall and Shavington Park.


Exploring the area in the OS 1880 series, not easy because the maps for each county are separate and need to be joined together, I found this anomaly that can easily be seen on OS Explorer at SJ 66575 40511 and easily viewed in Streetmap by copy and paste the map reference.


The map reference is the northern of two bridges over the Shropshire Union Canal.


The county boundary arches around in a northerly bulge centered on these bridges and along that arching part of the county boundary with a tangent of 0.78 mile, 3 rights of way from Cheshire terminate. One is the Canal towpath, unusually designated RoW but also a permissive way.


There is a surviving RoW, a bridleway, this goes through Hawksmoor Farm, now a heavily industrialized type of farm yard. (courtesy of Google Earth).


Looking at Google Earth a far more attractive route would be either of the 2 routes left off Shropshire's Definitive Map, but included by the Cheshire CC.


Can we blame anyone for this, might not have to look too far, Chairman of Shropshire County Council in the 1960's was one Heywood Lonsdale and he lived at Shavington Park.
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
Re: More about Lostways .....Yawn.
« Reply #1 on: 10:56:26, 25/04/18 »
Thanks to the seamless 1:25k OS map  O0 , I was able to follow up on an idea, triggered by the little cluster of rights of way that come to an abrupt end at a hedge in the middle of a group of fields in north east Shropshire.


I followed the entire county boundary and found 70 such anomalies, unlike the Heywood Lonsdale anomalies not all were inward bound. 18 rights of way from inside Shropshire came to an abrupt end at the county boundary.


52 to 18 against the integrity of the Definitive Map and the County Council of Shropshire, I wonder that the recovery of lostways prior to 2026 is safe to be left to private individuals and at their own expense.
« Last Edit: 11:27:09, 25/04/18 by barewirewalker »
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

vghikers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 460
Re: More about Lostways .....Yawn.
« Reply #2 on: 15:54:02, 25/04/18 »
Studying RoWs at that level of detail shows commendable commitment but it's a recipe for depression!. Local authorities can barely meet their highly visible obligations, let alone divert resources to ones like this. Anywhere outside popular walking areas is likely to have many RoW problems as we discovered long ago.

Apart from the definitive map, I've forgotten which other official maps exist or who has responsibility for them. In any case I wouldn't expect any help or cooperation.

I encountered one really weird case rather similar to your example that did affect our planned routes. There was a good track - a footpath - leading to a public road where it turned out there was a dwelling and a locked farm-style gate, but the RoW along the track terminated abruptly 250m short of the road. We hurried along and quickly climbed over the gate.
I got to discuss this over the phone with the RoW officer and surprisingly he had already looked into it. The OS map is accurate, the RoW does indeed stop there. Highly unsatisfactory but that's it.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
Re: More about Lostways .....Yawn.
« Reply #3 on: 17:35:51, 25/04/18 »
Personally would not bother the Rights of Way department with this sort of data, they are probably aware of it, the people unaware are the non-user representatives on today's equivalent of the Local Access Forums set up by the 2000 CRoW act to advise the administrators on the use and effectiveness of the access network.


The non-users, which include landowners get way with being treated as equal representatives, when it is their forbears, who made the creation of rights of way necessary and corrupted the definitive map in the process. It is the elected body of County Councils that this sort of information needs to get through to because the solution is political not legal.


I did not think that I would so easily find such a figure as this. To study on a deeper level with actual old 6 in/mile maps might provide actual reasons why a particular example damages our our access network today and in the future.


Example;
Two of the Heywood Lonsdale lostways lead to a bridge (lostway+lost infrastructure=greater loss), this would now be more attractive crossing because of the siting of a industrialized farm unit.


It is only a matter of time before 2026 before the media starts to look for stories related to lostways, if the user groups are not able to provide these, then the whole legacy of the corruption of the definitive map will slip into obscurity, a major reason why we should have parity with Scotland will not be articulated and the chance to make our access network a better tourism attraction will fail.


Doesn't worry me, but there are many younger people who should be taking notice. Perhaps listen to those of us, who know where the skeletons are buried.



« Last Edit: 17:38:53, 25/04/18 by barewirewalker »
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

pauldawes

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
Re: More about Lostways .....Yawn.
« Reply #4 on: 18:05:38, 25/04/18 »
More about Lostways.....Yawn......Yawn.......Yawn.


Lol.


But I know you give the matter a great deal of thought...being a lazy git I don't...but I'm glad you do because deep down I think most of us walkers know it's an important subject.


I have from time to time wondered what would happen if a team of impartial sensible people sat down with a set of maps and tried to "rationalise" the public footpath system in England...surely any fair minded person looking at some of our rights of way almost has to conclude that some footpaths must have "disappeared" because of mapping errors, etc??


(I've got in mind ones similar to one I walked a couple of months ago...a ROW I joined off a road went along for just under 2 miles, then ended about 75 yards of another road, from which another footpath could be accessed. Without crossing that 75 yards of "no man's land" that footpath of almost 2 miles was a complete dead end. Absurd...and in the spirit I've seen you champion so many times...I just crossed the 75 yards...without damaging anything or anybody.)

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
Re: More about Lostways .....Yawn.
« Reply #5 on: 11:12:27, 26/04/18 »
Thanks PD for your interest, thanks also to VG hikers, who has been a great help in this. If I had not been a member of this forum I would not have the access to the mapping that has made some of these observations possible.


[/font]I have from time to time wondered what would happen if a team of impartial sensible people sat down with a set of maps and tried to "rationalise" the public footpath system in England...surely any fair minded person looking at some of our rights of way almost has to conclude that some footpaths must have "disappeared" because of mapping errors, etc??
[/font]


Actually I think this has supposed to have happened with the Stepping Forward Initiative, though all it bought about is an agreement to fast track applications to re-instate lostways, I think there is also just as much chance that RoW removal can be fast tracked as well.


It still means just as much legal proof about the use of the path has to be shown. If a way has not been allowed for 60 years how can it have been used. If it had been a right of way; 'how viable it would make the rights of way it connects too,' is not valid proof for reinstatement.


Is this a serious flaw in logic?


My studies are fairly superficial, the trouble is both the Lostway Project, the Stepping Forward Initiative and Tony Blair's setting of the of the 2026 cut off date have been done without real study. Most opinion is formulated on innuendo and sadly the user groups have allowed their opposition get away with publishing the most lightweight policy document, largely based on inaccurate facts and opinion formed out of lies.


[/font]I encountered one really weird case rather similar to your example that did affect our planned routes. There was a good track - a footpath - leading to a public road where it turned out there was a dwelling and a locked farm-style gate, but the RoW along the track terminated abruptly 250m short of the road. We hurried along and quickly climbed over the gate.
[/font]


This quite a common anomaly, you cannot blame the RoW administration teams for them, that is where the legal existence of the right of way is. Often come about by the lack of understanding by the surveyors, who originally tasked with the creating the DM, of the political intent of the 1949 Act.
This was explained to me by RoW enforcement officer, not from my own county about 15 years ago. Doubt I would get a similar explanation 'on the record' now. It would be unfair to the landowners for a public servant to admit that. :2funny:

BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

pauldawes

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
Re: More about Lostways .....Yawn.
« Reply #6 on: 15:01:28, 26/04/18 »


Actually I think this has supposed to have happened with the Stepping Forward Initiative, though all it bought about is an agreement to fast track applications to re-instate lostways, I think there is also just as much chance that RoW removal can be fast tracked as well.


It still means just as much legal proof about the use of the path has to be shown. If a way has not been allowed for 60 years how can it have been used. If it had been a right of way; 'how viable it would make the rights of way it connects too,' is not valid proof for reinstatement.


Is this a serious flaw in logic?





A flaw in logic? I suppose that depends on what overall objective is...it's "good logic" if overall aim is to just grant minimum restated footpaths to get those pesky ROW "moaners" off the case.


It's certainly not optimum approach if aim is to link existing ROW's together more coherently to allow sensible walking routes wherever practical...I suppose real problem is that few people share your deep conviction that sensible walking routes benefit all.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
Re: More about Lostways .....Yawn.
« Reply #7 on: 11:55:24, 27/04/18 »
The flaw in logic is to leave the possible repair of the network to the private individual, where the cause was incompetent administration by the bodies charged with creating the DM and the corrupt direction by elected persons with vested interests.


Just to allow a few activist to reinstate a bit of footpath across the corner of some landowners field for personal satisfaction would be pointless, yet a shortcut across a field can be in indicator of a much longer route. This is where IMO there has been insufficient study, the first step would be to look at the overall picture with the lost ways inplace and evaluate it.


Of course this would be practical and possible with the Scottish setup. Wishful thinking, also wishful thinking that walkers would actually go out there and prove the routes, they have singularly failed to do this in lowland parts of Scotland, where I have walked.


But the missing link is the targeting of infrastructure, which the old ways gave access to. Near Shrewsbury there is a mile of 30ft high railway embankment with an archway, where an old lostway provided a way through it. The course of the lostway would not now be practical as a
a new road crosses it's original line.


Yet there is a very obvious alternative way that could use this valuable 'access infrastructure', the river bank provides a 10 meter uncultivated strip, required by law to protect the watercourse from chemical spray contamination. Is this an example of how the access provision is unable to keep up with change?


The resulting way would be valuable as both equestrian and pedestrian access, potential continuity of way may be upward of 10 miles cross country access. This is a significant value to the rural community, as well as a social amenity but the CLA in all there wisdom do not touch on such potential in their policy document.


In fact they have blown hard for years about how supportive of equestrian business development they are, yet I have never heard them propose the sort of  measures needed to improve cross country hacking.
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.