Walking Forum

Main Boards => General Walking Discussion => Topic started by: barewirewalker on 12:57:09, 02/06/15

Title: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:57:09, 02/06/15

Or what else should we call them, these "no go" areas, are they a residue of a class system that should have been eradicated?
But before I spark off an argument of social inequality, lets look at the the part they play in route design.


What is an Xzone (exclusion zone)? It is like a black hole on the map, it is when you have an objective and you are frustrated by a total lack of footpaths or other RoW to allow you to acheive your destination. I have read, repeatedly, critism that some areas of Open Access are not accessible, because no RoW's lead to them.


But what if a large area without Right of Way has an impact on reaching certain objectives, should this be a matter for criticism?



I started to follow this topic with some interestest;
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=29814.0
The OP's enquiry about access to unpaved roads, this led to his real objective seen here;
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=29814.0





(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Xzones_cressage-dorrington_1-250k_zpstzkecch4.jpg) (http://)



SB is planning a walk from Litchfield to Dolgellau, following his intended route over the Wrekin (1)in Shropshire I would have suggested crossing the River Severn at the Cressage bridge (2), as this would avoid a  5 mile section of the Severn Way, which only allows 1.2 miles off the highway.


But this option is also frustrated by a lack of  'off highway' alternatives because of substantial areas without footpaths, now these are in the lea of a bridge, the one crossing of a major river in over 7 miles as the crow flies.


What has surprised me is the actual size of these no-go areas, when viewed in relationship to route planning and how they shut off existing very high quality footpaths from being incorporated into longer routes.
 
With the increasing urbanization of the countryside, farm cottages now being owned by people needing to commute to work, the RSPB's insistence of overgrown hedges, the increase of 'white van drivers delivering to rural properties and very much heavier and faster farm traffic, country lanes are less idyllic than they once were.


SB's, intended route is traced in red over the Wrekin. The track of the Severn Way from the Cressage bridge to Atcham can also be seen in red and is SB's option for the continuation of his route. Why? Because to cross the River Severn  at Cressage does not seem to offer the 'continuity of way' that fits in with SB's objectives.


The area X highlighted around Cressage in red is an area devoid of off road access except for 0.36 mile FP that does not help SB, measures 2145 acres.
The area Y is totally devoid of footpaths and other off road access, an area of 4338 acres it imposes a North to South barrier of 5.22 miles. Within it there is one disputed Lost Way that is registered with the county council.


Arrow 3 points to an access area that offers 1 mile of delightful dingle at Stevenshill, that would offer a far higher quality of way of and furthering the objectives SB seeks for his route.


Although I was aware of a large area around the Acton Burnell estate (Y) without access, it's extent has surprised me, when expanding a contiguous area until meeting rights of way. The strategic effect is to block off good lengths of existing RoW that can form part of a longer route. Area X acts like a defensive ring around the bridge.


Then to discover area Z completely perplexed me, how can 8619 acres (XYZ total) without access not affect the effectiveness of the network, it is the equivalent of over 35 kilometer grid squares.


Arrows 4 and 5 point to good lengths of footpath, either of which would add to the quality of route sought by SB.

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 19:55:58, 03/06/15
If I had not been a member of a LAF I don't think I would have got to know of the  Formal Application Register, for claimed changes to the Definitive map.


 Shropshire Council have their register on line here;
http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/outdoor-recreation/countryside-access-and-public-rights-of-way/register-of-formal-applications/

and I found this claim for a 'lost Way' which is right on line to allow a crossing of area Y, right in the middle in line to join up to the paths in the Stevenshill Dingle. At the eastern end of the 'Lostway' is a RoW that continues in the direction of travel. This is in a different Civil Parish?????

(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/pitchford-golding_map_formal-app_zpsimacafdq.jpg) (http://)

Our footpath network is crock full of anomalies.

 


 
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:23:05, 05/06/15

I have been a member of this forum for a number of years, I have contributed and lurked, and tried to follow the trends in popular walking. There is, I believe a growing trend for Long Distance routes to be fashioned for an individual's needs and objectives. This I have noticed from following discussion from request for help to TR's.
 
To cross Shropshire be it part of the longest E-W C2C or just for someone to walk from their home town to the Welsh coast is not a rare idea.


To often the Severn Way is chosen as the means of doing this, by people who might expect that the SW was route chosen by local experts.


It was, as far as I can find out, created by committee set up by the old River Severn Water Board. No additional powers were used to persuade landowners to allow off road access and so the section downstream of Shrewsbury includes a four and half mile stretch of road walking as shown on the map below;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Cress-don_1-50k_zpsxotv1pqn.jpg) (http://)


Some years ago I was sent instruction by one of the major publisher's of walks, one criteria was that their walks should not include "Highway". I chose not to contribute, my best walks often break their other criteria that all their walks must follow rights of way. Another line of on-line enquiry into holiday companies creating package walking holidays seems to suggest that between a days walking is 7-10 miles, many of us walk further. In the event of the SW being offered as a part of a cross country route 4.39 miles of roadway walking as part of 7 or even 10 miles would be totally unacceptable, especially as part of it is alongside  a B road once the old A5.


It is with the background of these thoughts that the 3 X(clusion) zones balanced against the probability that there are old routes over a considerable distance of countryside that could offer better walking, should be judged.


Here is more detailed map, which shows a direct 9.5 mile route from Cressage to Dorrington, both villages served by bus services,
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Cress-don_1-25k_zpseifybvri.jpg) (http://)


Walking on roadway is highlighted in red.
Walking on rights of way is highlighted bright green.
Mauve and blue highlights historical tracks and ways that could be termed as lost ways,the continuity of way surely backs this up.


I am not suggesting that there was a continuity of way all the way through to Dorrington from Cressage, but Pitchford Hall was an important house and estate with a large establishment and employing many local people, this could have been the focal point for continuity of way from both the west and east.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:16:54, 07/06/15

Looking on-line at some old maps I find a footpath shown that roughly falls in line with a route across area X. It is 1945 wartime issue of the OS. Unfortunately I cannot get to see any older maps on-line without subscribing but as my local reference library has them, I will have to wait until I can get there.
 
These old maps do not legally prove a right of way, but they do show where generations before us had access. If those old routes coincide with a way that might be of public interest today, is it not worthwhile exploring them?


Today Mrs BWW and I will go for a walk in the Stevenshill Dingle, I have not been there for over 10 years, so it is worth going to have a little 'sprot around'.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:44:47, 08/06/15
If the X zone X had been endowed with a right of way as shown by the 1945 OS map, a cross county walker coming out of Wellington(Bus or Rail station), walking over the Wrekin, crossing the River Severn by the bridge at Cressage might be looking back at this view;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/wrekin_8485_zpstyqpswkd.jpg) (http://)


Cressage and the river are 300ft lower so the sight line picks up at a level of Eaton Constantine. The old footpath would have given the walker access to the field margin on the left of the picture and this gateway. Yesterday Mrs BWW and I had a great walk in the Dingle below Stevenshill, my other photo's may show the quality of way that could be on offer to the Xcountry walker if the effort were made to look at the access network with foresight and imagination.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/stevenshill_8484_zps2zpf0ozm.jpg) (http://)


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/stevenshill_8539_zpswtimaq2a.jpg) (http://)
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:00:36, 14/06/15
Just returned from a few days in London,where there are X zones too but they are built of brick and mortar. As my wife was attending a course for 3 days, I had the leisure time to just follow my nose. In order to take a short cut I nipped into an open doorway at the side of Somerset House. As it happened I was a bit desperate for a pee and the public facility, out on the street, demanded 50p in exact coin which I did not have. A very convenient convenience appeared before my eyes along a tall corridor, a welcome relief and after a happy stroll amongst the self absorbed locals I exited by a public door.











Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 08:11:30, 27/06/15
The white lane (unpaved road) starting at SJ 58850 04278, it can just be seen on my map of Cressage behind the Post Office. It leads to a mark flag at SJ 58075 04215 has played on my mind since noticing this anomaly that is the subject of this topic.


Mrs BWW was of doing some end of term stuff and for the first time in weeks that I have had to slip off, this type of outing is best kept solo, so I hopped on the 436 Bridgnorth bus to Cressage. Only a few hours ago I had been posting here about walking in Scotland and as I walked the pavement edge of the of the A458, I thought who would want to be walking here and then I reminded myself that I was trying to join the paths of the Wrekin to another beautiful part of my county. Once off the main road I am immediately sealed off from the spoiling sounds of the A road by the start of a deeply rutted track, after a few a turns a privacy notice reminds me that I am trespassing.


The track improves, because the farm traffic access of the road is through another field and not between the cottages at the edge of the village. The track is 2 thirds of a mile long, climbing gently to a spot height of 78m from 45m, to an old barn and cattle handling pens. During my walk up the track I looked back to get end on views of the Wrekin rearing up behind, as it towers over the the river crossing at the Cressage bridge.


The barn is on a broad knoll and I soon realised that I was getting an unique vista of the Severn Way walked by other forum members and only as I write this do I realise that I was looking at the site of the Roman city of Viroconivm from an aspect very few people will have seen it.


It is not a good time of the year to explore field margins, rampant plant growth, both crops and weeds, are there to impede. Further exploration soon became constrained to the where I could actually make progress, post harvest will be a better time for this.


Struggling along the edges of verdant crops, a field of oil seed rape eventually forced me onto the lane that would be the only option to link Cressage to the Stevenshill Dingles. It was an open topped corridor from which I could see the sky and little else. But I now know the hedge lines do link this knoll to the gateway I took the photo of the Wrekin, could the passage of popular 'trod' make this a thoroughfare? I shall be back for another wee trespass.

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: ron6632 on 16:15:57, 27/06/15
Looking on-line at some old maps I find a footpath shown that roughly falls in line with a route across area X. It is 1945 wartime issue of the OS. Unfortunately I cannot get to see any older maps on-line without subscribing but as my local reference library has them, I will have to wait until I can get there.
 
These old maps do not legally prove a right of way, but they do show where generations before us had access. If those old routes coincide with a way that might be of public interest today, is it not worthwhile exploring them?


Today Mrs BWW and I will go for a walk in the Stevenshill Dingle, I have not been there for over 10 years, so it is worth going to have a little 'sprot around'.

Only just browsing this thread.  Have a look at the SABRE website.  They have many of the historical OS maps online a la getamap.  There are some gaps in their coverage but most of the maps have significant uk coverage.

Edit: I should point out it's SABRE-roads!
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: fernman on 19:44:51, 27/06/15
I shall be back for another wee trespass.
Like you did in Somerset House?

Sorry, couldn't resist that!
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 19:59:41, 27/06/15
Ah ! folks do read my posts ............I feel flattered.


Thanks Ron that is a mapping site I did not know about. It would be a tremendous public benefit is the OS would make the historical 6" to the mile sheets available, especially pre 1911, this would help many who are research lost ways having to go to local archive.


There are I believe some folks researching lost ways, probably not enough, but my interest is more on the ground and how these routes may be translated into usable routes that will benefit the walker in the future. To see the relationship between the way and the terrain/geography is to me fascinating. To recover lost ways sadly is a legal exercise, unless enough public concern were to swing it into a political issue.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: fernman on 20:46:46, 27/06/15
Historical maps here, includes OS 1805-1869:
http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/

and OS 6 inch maps 1842-1952 here:
http://maps.nls.uk/os/6inch-england-and-wales/index.html
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:20:23, 29/06/15

Thanks fernman, how did I miss the OS 6 inch maps1805-1952 on that website, without going to the  County Archive, I have been able to download and construct a map that proves a route. Had I wanted to walk across Shropshire, say 60 years ago and had access to these maps, I would have been able to walk from Cressage to Dorrington (A49) almost entirely off road. There were footpaths across the X zones!


There is alway a provision the old OS printed sheets that footpaths do not necessarily mean right of way, but does continuity of way not indicate a route that crosses more than one holding had greater usage than just a local shortcut.


Here is I believe an example of how lostways can improve the access network.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:18:59, 05/07/15
And here is what old maps can show us, thanks to Fernman and his link to old 6in to the mile maps.
Fig.1.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/comparison1_red_zpsecgktq5n.jpg) (http://)
There would have been a footpath in days of yore, shown in red, the blue line shows a continuance of way along field boundaries from a white lane that leads to a dilapidated barn and cattle handling pens.
Fig.2.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/comparison2_red_zpsknc4oycm.jpg) (http://)
Although the white lane is shown on today's OS map, the old map shows a footpathe that adds to the continuance of way. 2 red dots indicate footpaths that lead well off the map beyond the holding the white road is on and is part of their continuance of way.
Fig.3.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/comparison3_red_zpsqvddumuf.jpg) (http://)
The 2 branches of the drunken Y meet directly with a footpath and a bridleway granted right of way status. Despite a clear abundance of paths leading E to W this parish does not bother to recognise the direction of travel to a village that is on a main road where travellers would have met transport from horse drawn to motor. There was also a rail stop there, supported by rights of way today.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 08:48:30, 28/07/15
Yesterday I took a 5.8 mile stroll around the area between Ryton and Dorrington, in the the area shown in Fig.3 and my route followed my 'Drunken Y' so much of it was a trespass. This is a view that the compilers of the Definitive Map of Shropshire did not think we should have;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/IMG_9481_zpsxzsr6kcg.jpg) (http://)


Stepping off the road by Windy Mundy cottages onto the N branch of the Y was like walking out onto a balcony looking out onto the South Shropshire hills,  it is an angle that gives a view of the Lawley, Hope Bowdler hill with battle rock and Carodoc that I have never seen before and I have roamed the county for more than half a century. What is shown on old maps as a track is now still a track. I had not trouble at all in following field margins, from gate to gate, doing no damage to crops all in full growth and soon to be harvested. Towards the end of the balcony, top edge of the first field, I had a tantalising glimpse of Pontesbury Hill between other summits, which would be the markers for a cross county walker heading west.


Yesterday was not the best day to be taking photographs, but the weather was kind enough to make it very pleasant walk which as part of a route across Shropshire I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone if it was in fact a right of way. It is fact far better in quality of way than the other options that are rights of way.


The S branch of the Y, which links to a bridleway was a bit more difficult because of a short section of overgrowth. Understandable because no one walks it and the passage of a few more would soon overcome this as it is otherwise perfectly passable thanks to a hunting wicket courtesy of the South Shropshire Hunt, which leads to a series of small interconnecting meadows in a shallow valley. In the photo the tops of trees showing between the two corn fields is where I walked these meadows.


Either route would have been used to access the train station at Dorrington, as these ways are clearly a missing link to the existing Rights of Way.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 22:06:47, 28/07/15
And this is the panorama from the Windy Mundy track, view points do not have to be from the top of hills and only by exploring where we are not supposed to go will exciting lengths of new pathway be found.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Panorama_9492-6_zpsvfhpwyl9.jpg) (http://)

The track is on the left side of the photo the top of Windy Mundy cottages can be seen but new owners have made them into one house and renamed the house. Perhaps at the time of the compilation of the Definitive map they would have been tied cottages to one of the nearby farms, the farm workers would not have had a car and travel to town would have been by train from Dorrington station or possible the line closed by Dr Beeching, which had a station at Cressage.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:42:17, 06/08/15
I started studying X zones because I wanted to learn more about lost ways. To me, they stand out from a map and political/social (anti  8) ) reasons why they are there are a matter of history.


What has become a subject that fascinates me is the potential of the lostways and other routes that could be found to unlock the countryside further.
Some will say that adopting the Scottish right of responsible access will be the answer, it would be the cheap shortcut but not the whole answer.


There are several lines of interest that develop from an exercise such as this. The one that comes uppermost to mind with this example is finding the links between areas X,Y and Z and walking them.


The surprise was finding that the routes through area Z were walk-able though not allowable and a trifle overgrown for the tastes of some, those who like their footpaths well manicured.
Area Y I know I can walk, I have known the owner for many years, already have permission to walk his drive any time but also know that he is unlikely to want it become a RoW.


I had hoped to have walked the whole route by now and make some observations about area X, but the rain and consequent late harvesting has put this in abeyance for the moment.


There are other X zones to explore in my area and a closer look at the maps available through the National Library of Scotland have made it much easier for me to access 1880's OS maps.


Just finding a path on an old map does not prove that it is a lost way and a lot more proof is needed to to get reinstatement.  I do not have the resources or the patience for this sort of research.
 
On another walking forum I was told in so many word that lost ways were not worth the bottle, by an active walker. If the line of thought is along the parameters of the Natural England Project into lostways that was abandoned after great expense, then I can understand this judgement but when you walk the ground, I think that, a different set of principles open up before your eyes.


However, despite being thrown off Shropshire County Councils Local Access Forum, I believe I have forced them to discuss the lost ways of Shropshire, by using the Public Question Time item on the agenda of their meetings.


 
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:24:50, 11/08/15



My thought for the day;
Can specific sections of footpath have more strategic importance than others? Is there a corollary here, where the absence of 'off road' access in a specific area will have strategic significance?


Here is a pretty piece of shading on the map, starting from a noticable area that is free of RoW's, it is extended out in a contiguous area of no access, in effect creating a exclusion zone around the area of Montford bridge, the focus as it is a bridge crossing of the River Severn. RoW's approach the bridge from the south but no RoW's approach from the north.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/1-25kOS%20forton_Xzonw_red_zpsvoyr1kiu.jpg) (http://)
Why???? Is this an accident of history? The map shows a disused airfield and old maps will show that footpaths did approach the bridge from the north side if the bridge. Since the land around Forton was taken over for defence in the 2nd WW and the military airfield was discontinued immediately after the end of the war without the historical footpaths being re-instated, the three road approaches to the brige have been transformed by the increase in road traffic, to the extent that a new dual carriageway road and bridge have had to be built.


Net work of Footpaths shown on 1:6inch 1880's surveyed maps and prior to the building of the airfield and transposed onto a 1:25k OS map.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/forton_airfield_paths_zpsljapphbs.jpg) (http://)


The Severn Way manages to sneak across the Montford Bridge, under west of the shadow of the 'X zone'. Would a NE access into a major cross county route have significance?


If there is strategic importance that improves access across a far greater distance than just the immediate local ammenity, should the recovery of these ways be left to chance that well meaning individuals will discover them or should local authorities be pushed into taking an active part in the repair of our access network?
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:16:36, 14/08/15

It is a rather curious shape hovering over the approaches to Montford Bridge and I think that looking at the area without off-road routes rather than the linear routes themselves adds to recognizing how good route design could be helped by lostways or the creation of ways through areas without RoW's.
The shape looks a bit like a spooky vampire and the wing on the right could be a bit of an unnessary add-on as there is a natural boundary with the confluence of the River Perry.


As this topic get about 50 hits per post I will keep the story going. I think it fair to blame the War Office or the Ministry of Defence as it has been called since political correctness started to creep in for about a thousand acres without RoW's where there should clearly have been some re-instatement but what about the addition river bank?


A line of ways that crosses property boundaries did exist between and Bromley Forge, which effectively linked  Montford Bridge to a bridge that crosses the River Perry at Myton in can be seen on the map that was surveyed in 1881 and exists to this day as a grey path on Explorer maps. What is not shown on todays maps are the links to the ways that were lost due to the temporary use of the Forton Heath as an aerodrome.
Anyway I will post the map, which has been created by stitching together parts of 2 sheets of the 1884 1in.-6in. OS map downloaded from the National Library of Scotland;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/montfors-forton%20heath_red_zps6rm1ysmp.jpg) (http://)
Going back to "Good  Route Design", what woud be the bulleted points that a critic might award points, three come to mind;
Good  Use of  Terrain, Avoiding busy Highway and Connecting Destinations.
 I think that there is a potential route here that scores rather highly but I will leave that for this post as I will leave the additional strategic potential of the links to further destinations as I have a few more map illustrations to prepare and leave any reader prepared to stick with my reasoning to ponder the shapes.

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:31:26, 27/08/15
There are more obvious Black Holes or Exclusion Zones in Shropshire, but I am tempted to dwell on this one before moving on, because of the importance of Montford Bridge as a crossing of the River Severn. To me certain lengths of path have  significant strategic merit but the more I try to explain this the more I find that some people cannot grasp this point. If someone continually walks circular routes it is perhaps understandable that a wider picture is not seen.


As a member of the Shropshire County Councils Local Access Forum for a number of years, I was repeatedly sat on, silenced and even scoffed at for trying to discuss the importance of Linear Routes. Not recognizing linear walking is a mistake and the X zone that denies off road access or approach to a bridge that has changed since the A5(T) altered the traffic profile of the area, shows up that weakness of a system of access that does not allow new routes to develop.
Even if the old routes were not there to show the way, surely there is a clear advantage of using this bridge for shared use between pedestrian and road traffic beyond local use and the benefit of an attractive approach to an old,attractive sandstone river crossing.


The old way from Bromley's Forge to Montford Bridge, by it name is giving a hint to the possible reason for it's use, not only shows a continuity of way in its main course but also is supported by tributaries which join it from the area stripped of ways after its use as an air field.


X zones not only block access but the also hide features. An Adjacent Area that is also short of public access hides the geology, which is the reason that the River turns as it does and is key to the Shrewsbury loop. The Bromley Forge path could unlock a barrier of privacy and show the way that shared use would benefit more than a privileged few.


Because only if you have walked the north bank of the River Severn down to Shrewsbury can you understand how the Severn Way could be improved to such a spectacular extent.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 20:11:39, 08/09/15
From the above map the course of the River Severn is directly north, but before it turns gets to Shrewsbury it will totally reverse it's course and turn south, is the meandering of a river of interest to the walker, the walker who walks the Severn Way will never find out because the route chosen by committee, opted not to confront landowners and give the walker the answer to the geographical question why the River Severn changes course so dramatically.
The river meanders across the flood plane between the Welsh border until it hits a southern outcrop of sandstone that forms Cheshire's Sandstone trail, but 2 estates stop access to this.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/leaton-berwick_Xzone_red_zpsib398si9.jpg)[/URL (http://)]
Again, this is the result of a very slanted interpretation of the 'Will of Parliament' in the creation of the Definitive Map. An approach to the core geology of the phenomenon that alters the course of the river, positioned in the map above in the curved wooded section against the east bank of the river as it is turned south, has been denied to us. There is a mile and a half of lost way that goes right across one of the estates.
The 2 exclusion zones are separated by an area around Fitz by footpaths , which come in toward the river from the north, but what use are they? They cannot go anywhere, a few local dog owners may use them to exercises their pooches but these paths do not give any excellence to a wider locality that should be allowed by their situation.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 14:11:42, 11/09/15
I started this thread off, describing 3 X zones that interrupt a potential X country route between Cressage and Dorrington. Yesterday I set off to walk most of the route  and had I managed to complete it I might now be looking to post a TR. I walked 2 sections I have never walked before, but did not quite finish the route as agricultural activity in a key field made me take a detour which then made it possible that I might miss a bus and had to alter direction to ensure making the connection.


The part I did walk made me realise that I was walking a quality route, if I were to be offering to guide someone across Shropshire I would not hesitate to suggest this line provided I could get permission to walk the sections 'Off RoW' and those parts 'On RoW' are sadly underused because the investment in walk furniture allows access to great parts of the local countryside.


Although I walked some paths I had never walked before, I have walked in that area, my previous routes were circular, often crossing that area in a different direction so the full impact of their value as a linear route had not struck me.


I also saw something that made me think that there was more to this route than the accidental lining up of two separate ways leading back to a common watershed. There were a cluster of Scot's Pines situated in a position as if they were supposed to be seen from a distance. I asked myself am I walking part of an ancient Drover's Way.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:33:28, 24/09/15
Looking at the south end of the above X zone, several RoW's seem to come to an abrupt end. A quick look in my photobucket album reminds me that I have referred to this before area before because this is that classic anomaly, told to me by a RoW enforcement officer, caused by the political differences during the compiling of the Definitve Map. A not so quick and unsuccessful search on if and where I used it on this forum ensued ???
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/gravelhill.jpg) (http://)
When I previously used this bit of map I did not have the 1st and 2nd editions of the 6in/mile of OS map made available by the NationaL Library of Scotland. Knowing the farmer who tenanted Gravel Hill farm, I am aware that the BOAT shown was called Church Lane and one might infer that was it's purpose but according to a 96 year old lady of my acquaintance the continuity of route was much more.
So this is why I have downloaded copies of the 1902 OS map and stitched parts of 2 together.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/fitz-gravel%20hill_1902x_zps6gti0gfk.jpg) (http://)
It is interesting getting the history of this footpath from someone who knew of it's existence 70-80 years ago and to compare that to the sort of excuses used by landowners today that these areas were always "Private Estates". I know from my source that the footpath went right across the estate, it was used by the lady to take her father's farm horses to the smithy to be shod but was also used regularly by many others. It in fact linked up a large house called Leaton Knowles to the town, which was the home of the owner of the adjacent estate, however this house was demolished in the 1950's. So the domestic staff needed to run such an establishment did not need foot access across the estate. It was, I am assured, a RoW as the owner used to instruct the then tenant of the farm to maintain it.
This lady and her brother, in the their late teens used to ride through the Leaton Knowles Estate and this route is shown as the line I have walked, if I were using the 1902 map I might not be quite so concerned with a clear throughway of continuity being a right of way.
The rather silly contention of landowners nowadays is that we wish to have access for leisure, as if that belittles the use of 'through routes' which may have served other purposes in a bygone age.
A shifty character with pockets bulging with pheasants would no doubt unwelcome on those off road tracks and ways but would this attitude have applied to the travelling knife grinder passing from large house to house, as with the local parson or doctor on calls, so would an innocent foot traveler perhaps visiting family have also enraged a sense of property.
The yellow dotted line follows a footpath under the northern end of 'Leaton Shelf', it gives access to fishermen to neatly spaced places to fish from until it ends at a brook which appears to be the estate boundary. I climbed over this into water meadows, that had gave me a clear and pleasant walk into Fitz, a village that is situated on a quiet loop off the main road, so that you do not get tangled up with fast traffic, that is indicated by the red colouring of the main highway.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 14:01:02, 30/09/15
 I don't think I will dwell on the Berwick / Leaton Knowles X Zone any more, those who are interested in these things, perhaps that will be sometime in the future may connect the possible route through and the ways lost through the Forton Aerodrome (WW2 vintage).
 
 
 The reflections that compiling this topic have led to answering  a few questions in my own mind. On another forum I asked if Lostways were important, one regular contributor said that Lostways were a waste of time because focus should be elsewhere.  There are two things that finding X Zones and asking the question; Do they have an affect..........? Brings to Mind.
 First they point to areas where there are lost ways and second the indicate areas where there should be access. The history of our access is built partly on to two major building stones A. The mapping done by the OS at the latter end of the 19th century and B. The mid 20th century creation of the Definitive Map, courtesy of the 1949 Act.
 
 
 One thing the old maps and there subsequent editions show is an evolving network based on the need to get on foot to the transport network that was developing very fast. Railway was taking overt from the Canals and it is only later after the creation of the DM that the roads/Highway network became an unsafe place for the pedestrian and equestrian.
 
 
 I think my next X Zone will show the anomaly more clearly. The positive effect of a lostway could be that it brings into play existing rights of way that are not fully playing their part in the network, the negative effect is part the lost played in a bygone age and does this have any value today. I think this points very clearly how the access network of the past evolved with the needs of the community then and therefore shows how the mothballing effect we have today does not allow public need to show where routes should develop.

Even the footfall of few could lead to a valuable new way.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 17:23:29, 18/11/15
I have tried to show how areas without PRoW's can have a strategic affect on an areas attraction as a place to walk or walk through. Forton Aerodrome has cut off approach to Montford bridge, since the building or the A5(T) a new bridge has taken the volume of traffic from this crossing of the river Severn, so it now becomes a part of a route, but the network was not repaired after WW2 and a potential asset is lost.


Another X zone has come to my attention on another topic;
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=12299.0 (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=12299.0)


I looked up this area and found that I had made a note of Pudlestone Court, it had come to my attention some years ago and I had made a note of the anomaly that a once grand house, had been reduced to surrounding grounds of 45 acres.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Pudelston-Court_1_zpso8mgmvca.jpg) (http://)
But this house has left a substantial negative legacy on the county's access network, I don't know the size of the original estate connected to this house, but I suspect there was one and the lack of PRoW's makes me suspect that the usual corruption of the Definitive Map took place that seems to be connected with  so many large houses.


When the area surrounding is added to a contiguous area without off road access it can become sizable.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/pudlestone%20court_Xzone_1k-px_zpsagnxb5it.jpg) (http://)


The area shaded out till hitting off road RoW's is shown on the map and is 2680 acres, this is the equivalent of 11 kilometer grid squares. Not being local I could not see a reason to mention it other than " Oh look yet another big house that has put a blot on the Definitive Map".


However XWEST's topic has stirred another line of thought which might be helpful to those wishing to improve our access to the countryside. Nearby a landowner is trying to close down a PRoW by illegal means, the access network is a social amenity that allows a certain amount of access in that locality, however such areas as thisreduces the average access available in that location and making the loss of amenity nearby more noticeable.


Just looking at the map makes me feel that this is interesting terrain, I suspect that there are lost ways NE of the area, which would add considerably to E to W continuity of way.


Anyway perhaps some might think that this topic is a Shropshire topic, thanks XWEST for reminding me of this example, I hope it gives you added strength to your case re the Hamnish Path, which is, I suspect, somewhere to the NW of this area.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 14:22:37, 20/11/15
When I started this topic I had noticed how areas without access reduced the effectiveness of RoW in adjoining areas and this idea prompted me to start the the topic. There are number of other such areas in my locality which are larger and have other social consequences. I believe that these problems are mirrored elsewhere, in fact I was firmly put down during a meeting of Shropshire LAF for trying to use an out of county example to demonstrate a local problem.  


The 'continuity of way' that is interrupted by the Xzones between Cressage and Dorrington is a loss of commercial asset for the county, which is aggravated by the fact that it seems clear that lostways actually complete up this route.


XWEST's topic here;
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=12299.msg450519;topicseen#msg450519
has drawn my attention to the Xzone above and it has triggered a recollection. A few years ago I was exploring a so called 'Private Estate', where I got into conversation with a tenant of one of the properties on the estate, as I knew the owner I was able to use a degree of familiarity that presumed that I was there with consent. I learnt that the owner had instructed his tenants to inform him of anyone they saw on the estate and that they themselves were discouraged from walking very far from their properties. This chatty guy told me that living there was very like being under house arrest during the shooting season.
The rural population has changed enormously over the last 60 years, when I grew up on a farm there was at least one family per 50 acres living in premises in the locality. By the time I was farm managing I was running a team of around 15 employees for a 1000 acre farm.


With the recent property boom landowners have cashed in the value of both renting and selling off housing and increasing the rural housing stock with barn conversions.


XWEST topic points to this conflict of interest but it also high lights another, rateable value, is a property in an area deprived of access as commercially valuable as a property with immediate access to the surrounding countryside? The owner of Pudlestone Court or a like person may claim that their lifestyle is dependant on more privacy but that asset value deprives others of an amenity.


Within a region this dilution effect may well make a difference to how property owners react to rights of way. It seems clear that the highlighting of access by right of way has fixated the notion of Private Land. Scotland has neutralised the more unpleasant symptoms of this conflict.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 20:21:03, 16/12/15
Do ordinary people need to look at areas of their countryside and say why are we not allowed there?  


Find an area that raises this question and then match the personalities to it and it becomes an interesting example of social science. Of course those of us who are expected to 'Knuckle our For'heads' to superior wisdom, will find the explanation of simple logic twisted into manic contortions.


So when I started to dig into the inexplicable loss of old ways into the above example I soon stumbled, through the internet on a nearby office holder of the Country landowners' Association, and I located his abode on the OS map. It is a curious coincidence that an X zone extends from that property, despite there being an abundance of ways extending from it on old maps.


It is only a few miles south of this blank area of countryside that must affect the access of the the populace of Leominster, that this phenomenon is repeated. This exclusion zone is 7250 acres, the equivalent area of 30 km grid squares.


Now I am not going to post the old maps or even try to illustrate the many old footpaths that quarter this area in all points of the compass, but the map below shows the size of 7250 acres on the !: 600k map;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/broadfield%20court%20Xzone_1-600k_map_zps66scs0vg.jpg) (http://)

 
This map shows that the X zone lies on a line from the bridge crossing the river Severn at Upton on Severn to Rhayader, even if the ways were left of the DM were an accident of history, What Routes might be there if they had been in place?  

 
Has anyone explored this area as a walker? Do we know if there are assets that might add to the access network of the UK? If anyone doubts the importance of this line of travel they only have to look elsewhere on this forum at the crossings of the Green Desert and the Monk's Trod. Why cross a natural barrier, such as the River Severn at a disadvantage to traffic? Especially when there is a crossing that adds the Malvern Hills to the the line of travel.

 
Would you buy a drop of wine from a business that is based on this apparent history of not sharing the countryside with its fellows? Because it must surely be apparent to an owner, who participates in the debate of access, that his forbears have added to the anomalies that frustrate the access network from being a useful asset in the business of GB plc.  

 
This is the picture that has unravelled to me from searching the internet, as I stumble over the enormous tract of our countryside that we are allowed no access to.         
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:17:06, 18/12/15
I have made a small improvement in my grasp of GIMP, and an ability to use it. Making and loading my own brushes has made it much quicker to annotate a map. So the No Entry sign was just clicking on the square off the map that does not seem to have any footpaths in it. This is the picture of the previous area but an overview on the 1;25k OS map. I wonder if I shall have chance in the spring or summer to go down there and have a look at this area.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/broadfield%20court_no-entry_red_zps3fqp2ep6.jpg) (http://)


I did have a customer, back in more productive days, in this area but my memory of driving through it in a van delivering my wares is more of high hedgerows. The map does make it look to be quite interesting terrain. What are the mathematics of keeping land solely reserved for shooting, not many more that 25 guns got a days shooting per week out of an estate covering a thousand acres back when I knew more about it. With artificially reared birds perhaps 50 might share 2 days per week, this is still quite low for the loss of amenity in such a large area.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:14:08, 18/01/16

Curiosity got the better of me and I downloaded the 1885 edition of the OS map, sheet XX SW Herefordshire and with a few wet days to fill in traced some of the tracks and footpaths that seemed to represent more than 'short cut of yesteryear' and 'ways to work', in fact there seems to be a pattern that adds to today's access network and fills in 'continuity of way' right across the X zone (area without rights of way). These tracings are shown as dotted red lines, bit like the tracks of blood poisoning I got up my arm from an infected finger.(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/broadfield%20court_lostways_red_zpswokjpd8r.jpg) (http://)


Did I say earlier in this post that this area is about 7000 acres without rightful access to the countryside? How did such obvious parts of our historic footpath network get left off the Definitive map when comparison with surrounding parishes shows that it was the same routes that were mapped to fulfill the objectives of the 1949 act.


Its noticeable that the Parish of Pencombe with Grendon Warren seems to fallen short in its civic duties, with the adjoining area to Broadfield Court being similarly infected with the same ailment.


We have an X zone of similar size in North Shropshire, which contains several natural features of note and a very large Iron Age Hill fort;
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1020284
Mrs BWW and I enjoyed a 7.5 mile trespass, some years ago, visiting this site and incorporating it with other features all connected by paths, tracks and field margins that conformed with the topography to provide a route that would equal any classic walk in similar terrain.


I wonder what could be found in in this area apart from a bottle of 'Chateau Broadfield Court' soured by the selfish attitudes of its landowner's past.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:04:58, 29/04/16
Just over a week ago I was walking west of Oswestry, close by the Offa's Dyke path, knowing a bit about Shropshire and its old families, I was aware we were walking on the fringes of the Brogyntyn Estate, the house was sold in the 1950's by the Ormesby-Gore family / Lord Harlech to settle death duties and the house was used to house a telephone exchange, this may account for Rights of Way that lead to and from the house making the area of the old estate seem reasonably accessible.


But as Corruption of the Definitive Map and Landed Gentry seem to go hand in hand or are coupled together like a horse and cart, it should have occurred to me that there might be something fishy about the original composition of the DM in this area.


On this topic
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=32300.15 (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=32300.15)
 I posted a comment with this picture


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/osw_track-spring%20_zpss9yhqeh5.jpg) (http://)


We were walking without a map, following fingerposts and would have gone further north if a suitable way had opened up, so on my return home I check the map and was surprised to find an area of over 1600 acres without RoW's,
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Xzone_1-50k_zpse2ag1qzv.jpg) (http://)


A closer look on the 1:25,000 scale maps shows that the OS were also surprised that there mapping of footpaths were not included as RoW and showed a grey path across the center of this Zone of exclusion approximately along the line of the pink shading in the middle. So I did not have to go looking on any old 6in OS maps to see if there was any possible Lost Ways.


Seems to me that X zones and Lost Ways go together like Bread and Butter and you only have to look at the surrounding pack of sandwiches to find out where the chef has been mean and forgotten to butter the bread.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/brogyntyn_Xzone_1-25k_zpsphv4chnz.jpg) (http://)


The grey path crosses the  X zone above Bradhouse farm and would appear to be the missing part of a continuity of way to the east and west which leads to Gobowen Station. As many old halts are no longer part of the rail network, they often show the original intention of the old footpath network. Here the station is still active, so does this black spot blank off a valuable asset.
This is the area shown on the larger scale of 1:600,000 road map.  
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Xzone_roadmap_1-600k_zpsghpd6yye.jpg) (http://)


The Harlech - Talybont stretch of coast line is a particularly good target area for the Long Distance walker as the coastal rail line in the lea of the Rhinogs is well provided for with request stops.
Just a shame the Gobowen jumping off point is marred by a seemingly blatant gap in what could be a full set of historical footpaths.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 14:41:54, 01/05/16
Having spent time on a Local Access Forum, it worries me that so little informed study has been put into the network of footpaths we rely on to access our countryside and the revenue it creates for our national economy. Very small observations can be made, from which lessons might be learnt, but National England cost the tax payer enormous sums in a so called study of lostways and yet no legacy of learning has come from it.


Our footpath network is made up of yesterday's shortcuts and old routes to work, this is the knowledgable assessment of an office holder to the landowners' organisation, who played a part in creating the landowners' national policy on Rights of Way. This policy does not recognise that their former members were largely responsible for the Corruption of the Definitive Map and therefore, we will probably drift towards the cut off date of 2026 with little actual knowledge of the value to be lost.


Taking a closer view of the lostway at Bradhouse farm, what can the actual line of the path indicate about it's original purpose?;



(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/bradhouse%20farm_fp_zpsz3bojuxr.png) (http://s171.photobucket.com/user/barewirewalker/media/bradhouse%20farm_fp_zpsz3bojuxr.png.html)


A local shortcut will go directly to the venues that the length of footpath that is supposed to be a shortcut between. The 2 arrows in the close up section of 1:25k map shows the footpath follows the hedgeline away from the farm joining the farm access track as close to the highway as is possible and the very names of the holdings give some indication of the size of the holdings in their former days, which leads to reasonable conclusions about where the field gates might have been so that those other members of the community, who created these paths, chose their route across other peoples land.


It is these routes that the Act of  Parliament in 1949 tried to break the landowner hold over our countryside with and so give to all people a free and even access to it.


Not being the cleverest of folk, I have to use my fair share of low cunning, to reason out problems that seem to bog down those more learned gentlemen of the law, with university degrees and letters after their names. How many more little snippets of interest are lying around on maps that are out in the public domain? Which not only show that mistakes were made, but also indicates a sensible solution that cannot be reached because the law does not allow it.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:58:59, 04/05/16
An area without off highway RoW is a surefire way of finding lostways, the now chairman of the Shropshire Local Access Forum told me that bringing up the subject of 'lostways' is certain to annoy landowners, this may have been a warning; when he became chairman I got the order of the boot. I could not keep quiet on the subject because the more I have studied it the more I see the corruption of the definitive map as a factor that diminishes the effectiveness of the access network as infrastructure supporting the economy.
Gobowen Station has survived attempts to close it, but it is a prime example of the type railway stop that is close to the heart of access network, yet the major arteries are diseased and do not work as well a the terrain should allow.


To the east the access network is a mess, only mitigated by the canal system, but shows a jumble of declining estates, revived by high land prices and the mark of inefficient Parish Councils is dotted well out into the Shropshire countryside. Difficult pin an exact example so glaring as this chunk of footpath,west of the station, that must, surely!!,once have been tramped by the folk of Selattyn on the way to the station.


Before I leave my musings on this, 2 screen shots from google earth showing the route as it once might of been.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/bradhousefm_GEpath1_zpsnod25fmo.jpg) (http://)


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/bradhousefm_GEpath2_zpsqurz7hke.jpg) (http://)


Top image shows the RoW's leading from the Station (E), the lostway leaves the highway at Bradhouse Farm and the second image picks up the lostway to where meets the highway to link into the current RoW network close to the top of the Selattyn ridge (W).

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:07:16, 16/05/16
In my previous post I said, "find an X zone and you will find a lost way", or words to that effect. Now there is a curious bit of mapping on the Landranger series. It is almost as if the Ordnance Survey is enamored of  our class system, a shaded grey area denoted 'Parkland or Ornamental Garden'. Sadly this demarcation often shows the ravages of time, permanent pasture ploughed up, and arable cropping taking the place of the grassland that was landscaped with a long drive up to hall or manor, a dwelling of large proportions and the home of a family with a name that will, almost certainly show up on past agendas of local or national politics.
Linked to this, I may be at risk of making a sweeping statement, but there is rarely a PRoW in these areas of parkland. Often from my observations these areas of parkland center on a much larger area without PRoWs. When a past President of the CLA, wrote about access, he said that we have the best network of footpaths in the world and in the same article expressed the opinion that it was made up 'shortcuts of yesteryear and past ways to work'. At the time the access network was first mapped by the OS, these large country houses set in 'Parkland' would have been a major employer and many would have walked to work.
Find an Area of Parkland and discover an X zone?


[/size]To the east the access network is a mess, only mitigated by the canal system, but shows a jumble of declining estates, revived by high land prices and the mark of inefficient Parish Councils is dotted well out into the Shropshire countryside. Difficult pin an exact example so glaring as this chunk of footpath,west of the station, that must, surely!!,once have been tramped by the folk of Selattyn on the way to the station.


It was by walking in the area that triggered my curiosity that brought the previous Lostway, that should have linked Gobowen Station with Selatyn, to my attention, but I had some few years ago time ago tried to puzzle the so called mess east of the Gobowen. Again by going for a walk in the area, it is possible to see that by not including the drives to large houses, the actual ways that originally formed the access network is incomplete.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Osw.east_parkland_1-50ka_zps4fucoywg.png) (http://)


6 areas of Parkland and if it was not for the canals there would be very little access. All of them center on a much wider area without footpaths. It is
Fernhill Hall, No.2 arrow, where I recently walked and found yet another anomaly that favours the landowner. I was trying to get from Whittington (bus stop) to Gobowen Station, without getting flattened as road kill and enjoy a little of the countryside in that area.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/fernhall_Xzone_zpsmybplpj2.jpg) (http://)


The parkland around Fernhill Hall is 50-60 acres depending on including the woodland adjacent to the house, the extended area of X zone is close to 1200 acres, close to the equivalent of 5 KM grid squares.


I walked out of Whittington North along the footpath that skirts the east side if the shades area, for about 1.5 km and then turned WNW toward Larches Wood to join up with the PRoW footpath, I found a way conveniently with style, gates and field margins, which led me to the Grey Path shown and to a gate on the road opposite the fingerpost to the footpath shown, leading from Little Fernhill. It was here that I actually saw signs of hostility, strategically placed barbed wire, chained and locked gates and rather unsafe structures to climb over.


Why is there a grey path shown on the above 1:25k OS map? The 1883 OS map shows it to Ferhill Hall, where from the back drive a pedestrian would be able to find another footpath, recorded as a PRoW and there is a destination that give reason to the whole length of way.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/fernhill2station1883%20map_zpstppccnky.png) (http://)


At first glance on today's mapping it is possible to miss the reason why the way through Fernhill Hall is a lost way, why would the people of Gobowen and beyond wish to walk all that way to the station? But there are 2 stations and one is for the now dismantled Cambrian Line and these are shown on the 1883 OS map.
The stiles put in place make me think that grant money is being spent on the area I took my little 'off Piste' detour and I suspect that "Conservation" is the buzz word. Public money from the generous drainage grants of the 1950's and 60's often got wetland like this into production, now it has become trendy for landowners to be conservationist. But the signs were that shooting was the main activity that conservation may have been motivated by.


Is the tax payer getting ripped off? Linking public transport into the access network makes the direct contacts that creates revenue, Gobwen is a rail link but it is sadly unattractive compared to Whittington with the Castle heaped with restoration funds and historically rich as a walk destination or objective.
 
That adds another saying; Find a Lost Way and Corruption of the Definitive Map is not Far Away. The missing part of the old route is to the advantage of the resident of the land the routes goes through. What is the point of the little bitty of PRoW footpath south of the Fernhill Xzone?
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 14:12:55, 25/05/16
In my previous posts I have said that find an Xzone and you will  find a lostway. A more offbeat way of discovering an Xzone is to look up on an OS map the area where the high and mighty live.
Or even those people the newspapers like to write about.
So it was  with 'tongue in the cheek' that I looked up this lead, after reading a 'Sunday paper' a month or so ago,  Tara Palmer-Tomkinson is a name that appears with regularity and as she claims to be a 'country girl' and likes nothing better than to escape to the country, I wondered where that might be.
Just following 'on line' leads, with not too much knowledge of their acuracy, led me to this area of countryside that caught my eye as an X zone, centered on Dummer Grange in Hampshire, ? T. P-T family home.
Does it have a lost way?
And if it does, is it of any consequence?

 
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/dummer_Xzone_red_zpse26u7q0t.png)[/URL (http://)]

 
What is the geography of this area that lacks PRoWs? Does it have an impact on the loacality? Not knowing the locality, I can only draw some conclusions from the evidence on the map.
It blocks E to W travel for 3.4 miles as the contiguous area spreads from the land east of Dummer Grange.

 
In 1887 the OS published a map that showed a Grange Farm, where Dummer Grange is now situated. This map also shows a footpath.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/footpath_1887map_zpsfycnmgl4.jpg)[/URL (http://)]
If that footpath had been included in the DM for the area, it would be the missing link in a direct route between Dummer and  Preston Candover, today it would allow a direct crossing of a road that must have changed since 1949 considerably.

 
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/footpath_1.25k%20OSmap_zpsvud5moxi.jpg)[/URL (http://)]

 
And this is the sort of space a walker might expect, should the choice the of using the road to link the 2 ProWs be the option. The distance is 0.4 miles, is there missing from the access network  1mile of safe alternative.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Capture_7rtx_zps203lsedg.jpg) (http://)

 
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:09:16, 28/05/16
Here is another picture (which is from the internet and from part of a search into Dummer Grange, I wonder why it is there, not because of it's scenic qualities) of the road that the Dummer Xzone will force the walker onto;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/road%20near%20dummer%20grange_zpspnynawti.jpg)[/URL (http://)]

 
Charles Palmer Tomkinson owns a 1200 acre estate at Dummer according to Wikipedia, this is a little more than the average garden that landowners so often like to compare their circumstances to the rest of us, with the hack phrase "how would you like someone walking over your garden". Also previous OS maps have recorded a footpath, which could provide a safe option to walking around 700 paces along this road. My guess would be that CPT's land, free of ProWs, contributes mainly to the shape of this X zone.
Should a man, who taught Prince Charles to ski and described by wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Palmer-Tomkinson) a 'Doyenne of the countyset', be set apart from the rest of society? To such an extent that his land management skills and responsibilities ignores a potential lostway on his property that has considerable benefit to society and economy. I have been involved in 'farm management', using a 6"/mile OS maps is a regular task associated with many management routines, both agricultural husbandry and farm management, so why not estate management. It is on such maps you will find the traces of these old ways and if they are not recorded it is probable that their exclusion is to do with the history of that land. If there is a safety issue, in any other managerial situation knowledge of  risk places an onus of responsibility to assess that risk. Landowners individually are only small occupiers of our countryside but their occupation of that space has implications on the rest of society,  much like any other business, such as cafe owner might put furniture on a pavement, to gain extra covers. However because the decisions about the formation of the DM was mainly made at parish and county level, it would seem that the interests of these individuals has taken precedence. Is this an example of such a case?

 
What of wider advantages, beyond the local amenity. There is modern infrastructure at the northern most tip of the X zone that shows how the old and the new can be complimentary to each other. Not on old maps.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/footbridge_1.25k%20OSmap_zpswp45q85r.jpg)[/URL (http://)]
A footbridge that gives direct crossing of a major highway (M3), linking pedestrian/leisure routes should be recognized as an important feature in the access network and part tourist infrastructure, how important?

 
There are some other features I have noticed exploring the map of this area, so I think it may well be worthwhile keeping an eye on Charles Palmer-Tomkinson's contibution or lack of it for a further post..

 
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:19:33, 08/06/16

 
I took a virtual drive down this road, as the footpath shown on the 1880's map shows that it exits onto the road opposite the track now shown as a bridleway, Google's drivebye shows this.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Capture_4rt_arrows_zpsgbvv4o2t.jpg)[/URL (http://)]
One of the things that I have learnt from walking in the mid-Wales border lands, where the walk furniture expected by many in other parts of the country is still catching up with the RoW's, is how the old ways are demarked by the legacy of the past. So it was with little surprise that swinging Google north I find an open view of the terrain through a gateway. Not stupid, our ancestors, not likely to walk to no gap at all and have to jump over the hedge.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Capture_6rt_arrow_zpsdikxbro8.jpg)[/URL (http://)]
My guess would be that the lostway would come over the skyline, from Dummer Grange, approximately where the arrow points and the line on the map indicates a diagonal line acros the field. Would this be a valuable addition to the access network? It certainly looks safer than walking down that road. If the Scottish alternative of common sense applied the field margins, would create a route, which would not conflict with the cropping but the old maps shows a route one could argue gives a quality of way that allows the visitor to really appreciate the terrain.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Capture_5rt_arrow_zpsdlybecqr.jpg)[/URL (http://)]
Back to the other side of the road and looking south, the lostway joins directly into the RoW shown on todays OS map as a bridleway and can be seen as this track. The line of the footpath would, I think have led to the corner of the field shown to the right of the picture, maybe around where I have put the red arrow. This makes good use of the terrain, complimentary to the line offered the north section. A look at todays OS map shows that it links into a bridleway which appears to have no RoW linking it to any other part of public access.
So the benefit if this lostway could be also bringing into play a blind alley. Does this anomaly add to suspicion that the original intention of the 1949 Act was corrupted in favour of the resident landowner?
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: phil1960 on 13:56:50, 08/06/16
BWW I really have to take my hat off to you, credit where credit is due  O0
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 07:57:58, 09/06/16
BWW I really have to take my hat off to you, credit where credit is due  O0


Thanks Phil  O0
before I leave this particular example it may be worth looking at in the context of a smaller scale map.
The smaller scale map tend to generalize the areas and of course they do not hold the detail that will interest the walker, but it is possibly interesting to look at the more generalized overview here on this road map.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Capt_1-1roadmap_zpsz7evkda3.jpg) (http://)
The shaded green areas roughly outline the North Wessex Downs, top left, and the East Hampshire AONB, lower right. Also of interest is the lower end of a rail line running south-east from Alton, The Watercress Line. Where the route I origininally traced on a 1:25k OS map leads to Four Marks station.
I never been in this part of the country, this purely following up a hunch explained earlier in my post. 
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:11:44, 10/06/16
The original X zone which started this topic showed old ways that could join up with existing RoWs to make a line of travel of 10 miles across Shropshire.
On the second page of this topic, I have shown a X zone agravated by ways lost because of a WW2 airfield and its close relationship with another, which seems to have influenced the course of the Severn Way and taken it course away from an important geological feature related to that river. The Leaton Knowles/Berwick shows an anomaly which could be a difference of opinion between two parish councils but the advantage fall in favour of the greater privacy of the resident landowner.
The case of Broadfield Court X zone suggests the entire parish council of one or more CPCs went on extended leave during the compilation of the Definitive Map. This X zone lies in and interesting area of extended geography, especially if interest in long distance linear walking is growing.
The Dummer X zone reveals a lostway, which could make the access network in that area safer and a look at the extended geography shows major assets that can influence the economic importance of walking.
So how do our landowner view foopaths?
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/a-modern-network_zpsx5ayzizi.jpg) (http://)
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 18:33:32, 13/06/16
What is relevant about an article written 6 yrs ago, it is not often find in print the opinions of landowners, they are usually bawled at walkers across a field and if they are like the opinions I had leveled at me, so interlaced with the 'F' word as to be almost unintelligible. This was written by the Deputy President of the landowners' organisation shortly before he became president and the CLA published there first policy on Access for 15 year during his presidency.


They are some interesting points made;
Quote
rights of way provision would have to improve, both in terms of quality and quantity. Landowners would have to give more than they were taking away, thereby providing a net gain in access


Given this was his opinion 6 years ago has any actual action been seen from landowners that give credence to this statement. In fact it seems to be a sentiment that is missing from their attitudes.


He seems to be convinced that he knows what is wanted;
Quote
People want circular routes, easily followed and preferably somewhere they can park their car.


Does this mean any old track as long as it goes around in a circle, are we not allowed to reach features of interest, visit sites of historical interest?  Also our landowners forget a group of people without cars, walking allows them recreational exercise without the additional cost of equipment. Safe access to public transport could have been thought of. Perhaps the CLA have not noticed that the road network has got rather busier since the 'short cuts' of yesteryear were first walked.
Out of interest I have googled Harry Cotterell
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/features/countrynews/lateststory/4780865.Harry_is_the_perfect_choice_for_a_top_post_among_rural_watchdogs/
and thought look up Garnons on the OS map; it is not suprising, reading the link, that it sets a scenario for another X zone.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Xzone_garnons_zpsp6ct4ldd.png) (http://)


Quote
Our members know their own rights of way better than anybody else


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/garnons_offa_zpskvrhwvpu.png) (http://)


Probably as well as the author of this article, has he failed to notice at least one feature which, at a guess, is within his estate.
The fact that Offers Dyke Path misses the real thing by so much might have imbued some deeper understanding about access than this article suggests.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/garnons_rd-map-offa_zps6eqqwhut.png) (http://)


Is he guilty by trivial dismissal, such as 'shortcuts' of yesteryear, of missing the real reason why the footpaths around his land appear to add up to a much longer way, with purpose that proves a wider and general usage? Can the grey paths, west of Garnons Hill, be lostways? They seem to fit into the RoW network as if they are missing parts of a jig saw puzzle. Add in Bridge Sollers, important infrastructure, which will have focused the routes people took in the past towards this river crossing, it becomes hard to believe that these 'grey paths' on the Garnon Estate are just internal ways.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Garnonss%20lostways%201-50kOS_zpsb6vyg7sc.jpg) (http://)
If they are, should we to trust the formation of a " A Modern Network for Modern Needs" to someone who can miss such obvious features on their own home ground, in fact can the country afford too.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:00:53, 15/06/16
Being foully verbally abused by the occupier of land, whilst enjoying a walk in the countryside is the experience that started me on the path that now finds me writing this topic. Curiously it was another topic,which led me to open up the map, where the verbal abuse took place. Two maps and two different stand poinsts on access, I think I have learnt from that original map, because it has been the start of a learning curve and I have discovered. Whereas Harry Cotterell has lived much of his life in the area of the second map and from his writing, its seems that he has learnt nothing other than to re-inforce the prejudices that are inherent in the level of society he was brung-up in.

 
The two maps of 1:50k OS area about the same area and have a similar feature, bottom left hand side, a dwelling set in parkland and  the occupants of both these dwellings at the time of the compilation of the definitive maps was compiled probably considered themselves members of the same social class.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Capt_tregynon_red_zpsqvuzgyri.jpg) (http://)

 
In Gregynog two spinster sisters lived out long lives, well repected but declining fortunes, if the very old farmer I spoke to on a hill overlooking the house told me true, they did not seem to be politically active locally, but academically active as recorded here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregynog_Hall
not the sort of people to interfere with the working of local government for there own advantage.

 
Wheras the map of a similar area from Garnons, where family what has inspired Harry Cotterell to be politically active shows a totally different picture. The incidence of access is low, yet HC paints a rosy picure of access network which needs some trimming, if we are to believe his assertions.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Capt_wormsley_XX_zps5lbmcf0t.jpg) (http://)]
The experience I had on a track from Tregynon set me on a path to try to understand, why a working farmer would be so incensed that he felt he had to bombard me foul language, whilst I was squarely on a RoW, yet a map with barely any RoWs can give the President of the CLA, who oversaw their policy on access, the experience to have a working knowledge of the access network.

 
It is study, which has convinced  me the reason of my verbal abuse on the trail is down to the CLA's public relations activity, which has been directed at their drive to increase membership.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:49:06, 19/06/16
I have started to look at maps of our historical footpath network with an eye that connects to the part of my brain, which wants to learn. It is easy to look for examples which back up prejudice.  
The pre 1900 series of OS maps are a snapshot in time, when more people walked, there of course ancient ways very much older and I think these are on other maps, but not in so much detail. Harry Cotterell is right to say that many old footpaths are taken from a time when walking was a necessity, but how wrong is he to dismiss so many as shortcuts of yesteryear. Perhaps before we chuck these old ways into the dustbin of 2026 we should take a closer look, if there is something to learn, those people, who claim to write common sense about access, maybe should question their understanding of the access network our current Definitive Map is based on. Many of the footpaths on the DM are recorded on these pre-1900 OS maps, some of them are just shortcuts but they take people of the highway, many more are much longer routes of the highway and this is what the 1949 act was all about.  
I learn from google that Harry Cotterell lives at Garnons, runs the estate there and likes to think of himself as more of a farmer than landowner.  
Taking a closer look a HC's home ground, what can we understand from a map;  
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/garnons_offa_zpskvrhwvpu.png)[/URL (http://)]  
Grey paths pass right in front of the house, these often appear on older OS maps marked as footpaths and there continuity of way can be traced well back through adjacent sheets going back over several editions.  
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/garnons%20drive_1886_red_zpsoahriqqf.png) (http://)  
On the 1885 map the same paths are there. But there is an extra one, showing an aditional line of approach from the north.A close look at this footpath highlighted red shows that it leaves the drive to Garnons house and crosses a field boundary to intersect a path, which is a junction of 5 paths. Infers a destination which is not the house and a clear intention to avoid the house.  

 
Footpath highlighted in green would seem to be the route to the house by workers and tradesmen.  

 
Footpath highlighted in blue shows a clear intention of one or more of the routes shown joining the interection of byepassing the house.  
Would this have been tolerated by the residents of Garnons? If the passage of people across the estate was too important, could not be stopped or was not visible,come to mind as reasons. A look at OS Explorer shows a drop of 30m within a 100m from the front of the house.  

 

 
So I Googled Garnons and gothis in the views of.  
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/garnons%201_zpsotfeg1ek.jpg) (http://)  
A closer look at a recent OS map using MM's elevation profile shows this;  
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/garnons_sightline_red_zpsv5bfdsez.png)[/URL (http://)]  
 
Now if the old reasons were important enough to pass the front of the house and those reasons still hold good today, an organisation that has a national policy on access should surely have the knowledge to understand the reasoning about such an example.  
Also is that clump of trees in a position where the front drive joins another serving a purpose. The L shaped wood adjacent would seem to be there to screen a building, part of the working estate? from the view from the house.  
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: ron6632 on 13:59:28, 21/06/16
Some very interesting anomalies there.


On the current map, most of these footpaths exist (or are at least marked), but not as PRoW's, with quite a substantial network in the woodland behind the house.  Are these permissive paths, or are they unavailable to the public?


There are a number that have been lost, specifically one to the West which would have passed straight through what is currently a large orchard, which would have helped connect several through routes.


Looking further afield on the current map, to the East, there is a missing bridleway between Bishopstone and Caroline Coppice (note the small spur from the main Bridleway you can see skirting the North of the large woodland in the picture below).  This estate seems to be riddled with paths that are not classed as PRoW


ETA - a permissive path would be orange.  The black dotted lines just note the existence of a path and not its designation.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 14:39:50, 21/06/16
I some times think that the OS include grey paths as a bit of a protest to remind landowners, what was once on the map. You will almost certainly get a 'flea in your ear' if you try to walk them and get caught. Many 'Grey Paths' do not exist on the ground, as visible ways.
As regards the woodland the are probably 'Rydes' for woodland management and also used in game shooting. Those that might be footpaths can usual be inferred from connections with footpaths linking them outside of the wood. Obviously what I am trying to point out are lost ways that once served the community and the landowners chose to go against the will of parliament by not putting them forward for inclusion on the Definitive Map.


Where the DM has been more honestly compiled the RoW through woodland will be highlighted and can either marked as a track or a footpath.


Thanks for your interest. Are you by any chance local to this area?




Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: ron6632 on 21:24:56, 21/06/16
No I'm not local.


It was Offa's Dyke that caught my attention here and as I had walked the path a couple of years ago I went looking for the route - some distance to the west.


I've got a fascination with maps (and an OS maps subscription) so I find this kind of thing fascinating.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: Percy on 21:37:58, 21/06/16
I some times think that the OS include grey paths as a bit of a protest to remind landowners, what was once on the map. You will almost certainly get a 'flea in your ear' if you try to walk them and get caught. Many 'Grey Paths' do not exist on the ground, as visible ways.
As regards the woodland the are probably 'Rydes' for woodland management and also used in game shooting. Those that might be footpaths can usual be inferred from connections with footpaths linking them outside of the wood. Obviously what I am trying to point out are lost ways that once served the community and the landowners chose to go against the will of parliament by not putting them forward for inclusion on the Definitive Map.


Where the DM has been more honestly compiled the RoW through woodland will be highlighted and can either marked as a track or a footpath.


Thanks for your interest. Are you by any chance local to this area?
I always read your posts with great interest but then have to conclude that they're almost completely incoherent.  :(
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:03:27, 23/06/16
I always read your posts with great interest but then have to conclude that they're almost completely incoherent.  :(


Percy I am delighted you read my post with interest, I shall do my utmost to keep you interested. However I must agree with you regarding above quote. Sadly it seemed to make sense when I wrote, I can barely comprehend it now. You have my sympathies, I think it must be Harry Cotterell's influence, incoherent but not speechless.


I think I also tried to mix up to many lines of thought, there is a relevant story, I think, I will post it elsewhere after I have voted.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:14:00, 23/06/16
Some very interesting anomalies there.


On the current map, most of these footpaths exist (or are at least marked), but not as PRoW's, with quite a substantial network in the woodland behind the house.  Are these permissive paths, or are they unavailable to the public?


There are a number that have been lost, specifically one to the West which would have passed straight through what is currently a large orchard, which would have helped connect several through routes.


Looking further afield on the current map, to the East, there is a missing bridleway between Bishopstone and Caroline Coppice (note the small spur from the main Bridleway you can see skirting the North of the large woodland in the picture below).  This estate seems to be riddled with paths that are not classed as PRoW


ETA - a permissive path would be orange.  The black dotted lines just note the existence of a path and not its designation.


It is these anomalies which interest me, I am still trying to fully understand the pattern. It is Harry Coterell's confidence in his knowledge of what we walkers want that puzzles me, check out his article previous page. Bear in mind he then went on to hold the Presidency of the CLA and they published their policy on access during his tenure of office.


He fails to mention access to features, which should be in the public domain, he is sitting right on top of one. Even if it does not fit in with a walk on the Welsh border named after Offa's Dyke, surely in cannot have escaped his notice.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: Percy on 12:05:44, 23/06/16

Percy I am delighted you read my post with interest, I shall do my utmost to keep you interested. However I must agree with you regarding above quote. Sadly it seemed to make sense when I wrote, I can barely comprehend it now. You have my sympathies, I think it must be Harry Cotterell's influence, incoherent but not speechless.


I think I also tried to mix up to many lines of thought, there is a relevant story, I think, I will post it elsewhere after I have voted.
I hope my post didn't come across the wrong way. You seem to have great knowledge about this subject area but I do sometimes feel that I am not completely grasping what you are saying.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 18:45:32, 23/06/16
 I hope my post didn't come across the wrong way. You seem to have great knowledge about this subject area but I do sometimes feel that I am not completely grasping what you are saying.  
 
Not at all. What may appear as great knowledge is my struggling to grasp at the facts and explain my understanding of them as I try to dig them out from old maps.


Sometimes I probably make a bit of a hash of trying to explain it. It would seem that no one else has, Natural England failed to recognise the original Corruption of the DM, and yet it would seem this is generally recognised by those who administer our footpaths.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 17:41:01, 24/06/16
Some very interesting anomalies there.


On the current map, most of these footpaths exist (or are at least marked), but not as PRoW's, with quite a substantial network in the woodland behind the house.  Are these permissive paths, or are they unavailable to the public?


There are a number that have been lost, specifically one to the West which would have passed straight through what is currently a large orchard, which would have helped connect several through routes.


Looking further afield on the current map, to the East, there is a missing bridleway between Bishopstone and Caroline Coppice (note the small spur from the main Bridleway you can see skirting the North of the large woodland in the picture below).  This estate seems to be riddled with paths that are not classed as PRoW


ETA - a permissive path would be orange.  The black dotted lines just note the existence of a path and not its designation.




The Caroline Coppice example is an interesting indicator of a much longer way, it shows, as you point out, a continuity of way through to Bishopstone. Was the purpose of the spur just to link the Bridleway? Which has been allowed as a PRoW to Bishopstone Court, but the 'grey paths' suggest a longer route.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/caroline%20cottage_zpsuw5dsnq7.jpg) (http://)
I show today's OS with a faint overlay from the 1886 survey, and we can see that more went on in Caroline Coppice than the map shows. The spur links to Almshouses Houses and a cottage, but a byepass is shown as well.


I have overlaid the resized 1886 map on the this map and reduced the opacity to show it as a show from the past.


Should we take a more forensic approach to old maps?
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:21:52, 27/06/16
Another bit of online reading;
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1000881 (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1000881)
Quote
After visiting Garnons earlier in the year, Repton produced a Red Book in July 1791. The grounds had already seen some improvement, and Repton mentions recently made walks west of the house. For the park he proposed to create the appearance of uninterrupted unity of domain. That was to be achieved by moving the turnpike road which passed c 150m in front of the house to a new line outside the park c 400m to the south. A new entrance was to be contrived and plantation screens and clumps introduced both to hide unwanted views and to enhance others.

Those walks west of the house seem to fit into the pattern of other paths beyond the boundaries of the park and would point towards a need created by the moving of the road.

 
The current view from Google Earth shows the back drive is no more and the Lodge house as a separate property from the parkland, it would have been possible to put a footpath in along field boundaries, with out any hindrance to the farming of the land, but despite HC mentioning landowners 'giving more than they take', this might be a 'give' a bit to close to home.

 
I have to admit to knowing about the Corruption of the Definitive map around Garnons long before I started this topic. In fact that Harry Cotterell became President of the CLA around the time I was first asked to join a Local Access Forum and I had access to the CLA's monthly magazine, I checked out Garnons and found an area around the estate stripped of RoWs, I thought that is just 'par for the course'. Coming back to this X zone has been quite a learning curve, shame it has not given HC some insight into lostways.

 
An area of 1940 acres without public access, equivalent to nearly 8 km grid squares. Yet another example of a phenomenon of which there are many examples across the country. I could not get particularly interested as I was concentrating on my home counties problems and the old maps would be 50/ 60 miles away in the Hereford County Archives. Why bother, the Wye Way manages to squeeze itself under the southern boundary of HC's privacy zone. Actually I may be slightly inaccurate there; Sir John Cotterell may be the actual landowner, though reading Marion Shoard's book 'This Land is our Land', which examines the pattern of ownership of rural land in the UK, I would guess that actual ownership is more disguised and protected against inheritance tax. HC would seem to have an elder brother, who stands to inherit the Baronetcy, this may be why HC likes to describe himself as more of a Farmer than a landowner. This was written in the blurb about him when he became President of the CLA, but even being the younger sibling does not mean that he is not aware of the history of the estate circa 1949 onward during the compilation of the DM.
Coming from a farming background, those who own land tend to treat me as if I fall in with their way of thinking, so the knowledge that the DM was corrupted in my area is still referred to with some relish, by those who think it clever to have 'got one over' on the intentions of the 1949 Act. For the scale of this difference between old maps and those RoWs, which should have been shown as they are elsewhere, to have been left off must be woven into local folk lore, you would just need to be in a particular strata of society to hear about it.

 
However thanks to Fernman's help earlier in this topic I now can access old maps sitting at my PC. Click on this link;
http://maps.nls.uk/view/101569740
and the National Library of Scotland will provide instant access to the 1903 OS map. The residual grey paths recorded on the Explorer map don't fully make sense until they are compared with the pattern of access shown by the actual maps closer in time to the original surveys. In my last post I refer to the path being a byepass, add to this the tributary paths which join way, this adds up to "Strength of Way" that rather alters the description of 'shortcuts of yesteryear'.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/garnons%20drive_1886_red_zpsoahriqqf.png) (http://)
Bringing back this image from the last page, does the the red deviation off the front drive to Garnons and the spur Ron has noticed indicate a much stronger pedestrian traffic Byepassing Garnons than merely local shortcuts.
Where is this traffic going to and coming from?
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/ford-ferry_zpswwu5tazv.jpg) (http://)
Does this give us a hint? This section of map is taken from the 1886 map, which does not show a bridge at Bridge Sollers. The link to the later map 1905 above does show the bridge. Now a bridge crossing of a major river outside of an urban area must be an important feature in the access map for the 21st century, a redundant ferry not important but could access to historical ford crossing be of value to the equestrian tourism industry. Also valuable entry/exit points for canoeists.


 
 

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:54:14, 29/06/16
I wonder if anyone has followed my link to the Library of Scotland's 1905 map of Sheet XXXII.NE and had a look at it, to compare it with this map I posted on the previous page;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Capt_wormsley_XX_zps5lbmcf0t.jpg) (http://)
I have spent a few hours highlighting the old footpaths etc. to get a better picture of the difference between the access allowed today and the access shown in the days when the OS were able to survey the footpath network as it was being used. In those areas where there is a high incidence of 'off highway access' these ways tend to bear a very similar pattern to the ways shown from these surveys.


I have overlayed some of these ways onto the OS 1:25k map, as they have manage to escape the notice of the local CPC's and others charged with the civil duty of compiling the Definitive Map I have use the colours nature uses to draw attention.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/overlay_paths_1.25kmap_A_zpsek86fawa.jpg) (http://)


Bear in mind this is the Local area Harry Cotterell has drawn on his personal experience to publish the Landowners' National Policy on our Access Network.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:50:16, 30/06/16

Harry Cotterell wrote;
Quote
People want circular routes, easily followed and preferably somewhere they can park their car.

Is it as simple as that? Perhaps he should have written, "fair access to their Countryside".

Because I do not think that HC's experience and knowledge is limited to the area of 1940 acres immediately surrounding Garnons, which is devoid of PRoW's.

If one is to search for a PRoW north east of the Bridleway,which forms the top-right edge of the X zone another even more enormous X Zone appears.

(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/road%20map_mg-ml%20Xzones_zpslica0lbr.jpg) (http://)

This is an area of 8800 acres and 1940 acres equals 44 km grid squares which share just that length of bridleway.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:04:27, 01/07/16
Despite this large area of potential lost ways to learn from and come to conclusions leading to a positive and constructive approach HR led the landowners along a route, which is destined to trim and minimise our access network if the CLA's lobbying is effective;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/gettingontrack1-1.jpg) (http://)


"Small Errors on the Definitive Map" ? ? ?

Of course to download The Right Way Forward from cla.org.uk you need an identity and password to get into their private website. An active member of the CLA sat on the Local Access Forum with me and over the three years until my ejection, never was this document referred to or offered for comment to that forum.
In fact to get sight of it I had to use someone else's password to access their site to get a copy. The fact that the 1949 act, which created RoWs, resulted from the political frustration created by landowners refusing to allow access in the pre-war era is not mentioned, their policy pamphlet is a pathetic whinge about the difficulties created by the need for RoW's and a call to chop out those footpaths, which appear to have no use.
There is on Harry Coterell's own doorstep an abundance of examples of incomplete ways, waiting for the recognition of the Corruption of the Definitive Map, so they can be unlocked.





Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: histman on 12:38:25, 01/07/16
Mr Cotterell is now Chairman of Fisher German one of the main land agents in the East Midlands. Not a great company to deal with when raising problems with PRsOW on the land they manage. Though compared with the Church Commissioners they are angels!

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/fisher-german-announces-new-chairman/story-27881486-detail/story.html (http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/fisher-german-announces-new-chairman/story-27881486-detail/story.html)


Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:10:38, 03/07/16
Complete with newly awarded OBE.   :-\


Hi Barry great to know you are still following my posts. You may not know that your cross country adventure, which I read with interest, should have been made more direct by a route from Newport to Shrewsbury.
Of course the footpaths for this route are not PRoW's, but there is a footbridge over the River Roden on the line of the route (an expensive piece of infrastructure) sadly underused. The de-militarization of the High Ercal aerodrome contributed to this and one or two more interesting points, which Harry Cotterell should have been taking into consideration if he had properly earned his OBE.


Curious that ignorance is no excuse in law but it is lack of knowledge based on an arrogant disregard of research, which brings high recognition to those with power.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 18:47:47, 07/07/16
This is the page from the CLA's policy document relative to lost ways;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/lostways%20page_CLA_zpsyu5dy0jw.jpg) (http://)


Does it ring true? If the ways were really as Harry Cotterell describes then perhaps, but the comparison of the mapping of old footpaths with today's access does not tell this story. A wholesale stripping out of ways that link into Public Rights of Way, which should have a valuable contribution to a continuance of way to valuable destinations, is the message I get from looking at the maps in HC's home patch.


Is the reason these paths are not been used because they are not PRoW's? Yes, it is probably beyond living memory for most since the 1949 Act, however the continuity of way across this exclusion zone lead to a non-urban river crossing. The only bridge in a 10 mile stretch of the River Wye. 10 miles from Sollers Bridge, WSW, a walker would be approaching the Black Mountains.

If landowners would own up to the Corruption of the Definitive map, allow the restoration of those missing parts of the access network, the 1949 Act tried to create, perhaps this would be a common sense approach.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:43:29, 08/07/16
Bridge Sollers looking North,
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/bridge%20sollers2N_zps5fcorkq2.png) (http://)
almost a wasted asset as the approach from the north is practically blocked out by the exclusion zone. I personally would not want to approach this bridge in the face of traffic on the bend. A cross country approach from out of the right skyline may well have developed if the old ways had been properly recorded.


Crossing the River Wye here would be a pleasant part of a route, local circular or long distance linear, on the south bank going east there is a PRoW, which is mapped by the OS consistently with other footpaths omitted. Whereas the CLA believes there is a strong case to immediately end claims for unused unrecorded ways, it is examples such as this logic would require that time is given for claims to be made.


Reading the above page, the CLA's Common Sense approach strikes me as a petulant whinge, rather than a balanced document with a sound basis for deciding the future of 'Access to our countryside'.


The one notable omission from HC's articles and the CLA's common sense approach is the growing contribution leisure activity makes towards the rural economy. In Scotland the BMC quote figures for walking alone out earning all field sports by ten times. A common sense approach would concentrate on strengthening valuable assets such as the river crossing at Bridge Sollers.


I think that the driving force behind the CLA is guilt, more afraid of losing image through the self interest of their forbears being brought to public attention they wish to hurry past 2026, covering up, rather than owning up.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:11:23, 10/07/16
Back on page 2 of this topic I outlined a 7250 acre, area bare of PRoWs, extending east from Broadfield Court, Herefordshire. This also must have come to the attention of Harry Cotterell as the landowner, who appears to have a sizable stake in this area is a past chairman of the CLA.
If we put this area into a map together with those of the Garnons - Mansell Lacy group an interesting and curious pattern emerges, which seems to refute, quite definitely, some of the assertion made by HC or his staff in the CLA's wise document on lostways.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/combined3xXzones_zpsduaf3bhg.png) (http://)
The purple dashes is a possible route following PRoWs, leads over Dinmore Hill towards Mansell Lacy. It starts at a bridge over the River Lugg, this bridges is approachable by footpaths from the north and the south by footpaths, it is a safer crossing than its nearest alternative and on the west side of the bridge a spur extends from Dinmore hill directly towards the bridge.
This is the sort of natural feature that will enhance the value of a route, but sadly it is totally cut off from any approach from the east and the north by the Broadfield Court Exclusion zone.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/GE_bodenham%20bridgeR_zpswwrgby54.png) (http://)
but this sort of river crossing that is less of a traffic hazard should be considered an asset to the development of the access network, especially when it's improvement can be made by ways left off the DM to the apparent advantage of those landowners in the 1950-60's, who used their positions in public office, to obstruct the purpose of the 1949 Act.
The approach to the bridge can be seen from this Google Earth shot;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/bridge%20over%20lugg_GE_R_zpsliotxfig.png) (http://)
Because the CLA is an organisation concerned with the protection of property rights, their policy does not truly reflect the interests of the farmer, the producer. Any business which creates a product has to be aware of the value of public relations (PR) and how this promotes their product. The farmer has a very valuable (and cheap) PR tool in the access network, a fact HC has missed and his 'common sense' policy will perpetuate a situation which may well undermine the goodwill between the local producers of our food and their consumers. All this in a blind pursuit to hang onto privileges from a dark age.
HC wrote in an early article, "landowners may have to give more than the gain". This disappeared, maybe he was given a smack by Sarah Slade. This little venture into this part of Herefordshire has shown me a perfect example of the sort of constructive Permissive Way an enlightened body representing landowners would make, however the true value of this improvement is blocked by Broadfield Court.


To be continued.....
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:38:41, 12/07/16

Quote from: Harry Cotterell wrote in his article 'A Modern Network for Modern Needs';
For a proposal like this to work. a few fundamental principles
would have to be applied. First, within a parish (or a group of
parishes), rights of way provision would have to improve, both in
terms of quality and quantity. Landowners would have to give
more than they were taking away, thereby providing a net gain in
access. Second, there would have to be agreement with the
parish council and, perhaps, with the local authority, that the
modernisation within a parish was an improvement on existing
provision. Third, important linear routes would have to be preserved
- perhaps the local authority should list them.



Is there hidden in those words an understanding that landowners corrupted the Definitive Map or even a knowledge of the past history of the intransigence of landowners to allow access? Take the words
"Landowners would have to give more than they were taking away, thereby providing a net gain in access".
When I first started reading the CLA's publications on access the predecessor to Sarah Slade, CLA's advisor on access, wrote almost exactly those words. By the time Harry Cotterell took over the presidency Sarah Slade had been appointed to this post. According to Google she is a Lawyer and Landowner, her whole ethos on-line seems to be hard line anti-access, a stance which was confirmed to me by someone who had served on the same committees with her. The attitude expressed in HC's earlier words have disappeared from both his later writing and the CLA's policy document.
It is perhaps worth while looking at the map and speculating the sort of changes a more enlightened attitude from landowners might make in the context of;
Quote from: Again Harry Cotterell wrote in his article 'A Modern Network for Modern Needs';
The problem is that thousands of miles of public rights of way
were never designed for recreational walking. They evolved
when walking was the most common mode of transport in the
countryside and it is no surprise that nowadays, people do not
want to walk the short cuts of yesteryear. People want circular
routes, easily followed and preferably somewhere they can park
their car.

The post code for Hampton Court in Herefordshire is HR6 0PN, put this into Street Map and this map comes up, which is the next bridge upstream on the River Lugg from my previous example. This is a very much busier road and a PRoW footpath can be seen exiting onto the road from the north east. From the tone of the CLA's policy document this footpath could well be a contender for the axe, it's use must be very little because of the length of hostile 'A' road would make it an unpopular way to approach this river crossing.(possibly confirmed as there does not seem to be a style and fingerpost)
The more I look at maps and our leisure access the more I come to realise the importance of river crossings. Safety is also an important consideration, both for drivers to be spared the distraction of pedestrians suddenly appearing on sections of busy highway as much as having a safe footpath network.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/hampton%20court%20map-dinmore%20hill_1.25k_zpsxrfcqg6v.jpg) (http://)
 The mauve dotted line shows a way via a field margin to a bridge, which would overcome the change in the nature of of the A417, since the footpath was originally used.
Google earth gives an idea of the nature of the road looking east from the Hampton Court bridge;

(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/hampton%20crt.bridge_A417Er_zpsg7wckzry.png) (http://)


and Google Earth shows the safer bridge option;

(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/hampton%20crt.bridge_offroad_r_zpshgxaaa7i.jpg) (http://)

The question is do you scrub out a mile or so of PRoW or do you make it suit a new purpose? Especially when land use has changed in its favour, here ornamental garden  of a century or so ago is now pasture. The possible permissive way shown in mauve, at a stroke, creates a circular route that incorporates Dinmore Hill and a visit to the Lugg, from parking in the Queenswood Country Park, using field margins.
If the grey path along the banks of the Lugg, which presumable served as a way to school, were restored then these 2 grid squares would get a linear access total nearer to the national average in 2 grid squares would be gained.


Somehow HC's conversion from an earlier view on access has taken the CLA further from an understanding which will help to build an access network suitable for the 21st century.





Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 16:45:21, 19/07/16
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/hampton%20court%20map-dinmore%20hill_1.25k_zpsxrfcqg6v.jpg) (http://)
I suppose suggesting a landowner ought to allow a permissive path is presumptuous, I think the trees along the ditch and river side hide the strong possibility that a way exists. However the precedent of the way having been there is not shown on the old maps. It is just a 'common sense' suggestion to bring into use a valuable length PRoW, which has become unsafe, because of the change in time of the nature of road traffic.


However old maps do show a way along the south river bank of the River Lugg from Ashen Grove, which 'common sense' suggests was a way, integral to the community, to school and church. Would this footpath have been included in the Definitive Map by civic office holders with more enlightened minds? If there was a PROW along this grey path, it opens up a possibility of a route from Queenswood Country park of 4 miles, this walk encloses 345 acres.
 A four mile walk is just touching on a useful distance, it is one mile greater in distance cardiac surgeons like their patients to walk daily after major heart ops. Queenswood Country Park covers 47 acres according to this web site. 
This area cannot provide a walk within its boundaries of this length,  but it can provide the parking and the information. I failed to find even a hint that such thinking is contained within the policy document Harry Cotterell promoted as common sense.


Does fact that landowners occupy space within our country, which implicates others within our community, merit such a poor understanding. This is an example barely 8 miles cross country from his doorstep and perhaps 15 miles by road.


Credenhill Park Wood is closer and this is possibly the model he has in mind for the quintessential example of 'what walkers want'.


It is worth a look at because it also relates distance to area................
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:57:45, 27/07/16

Driving east along the A438 towards Hereford a glimpse of Credenhill over the hedge. Credenhill Park Wood ticks all the boxes to meet the needs of walkers as described by Harry Cotterell and this is the route he must take many times. Is it with a sense of smug satisfaction that the 'walkers needs are so neatly wrapped up in this particular example, this particular landowner can see no deeper into the needs of access as a social tool?
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/credenhill%20from%20road_R_zpsldwqaiyq.jpg) (http://)
It has all the criteria, if the way marks are in place, the circular layout of the ProWs, enclosed, should be easy to follow, there is parking!
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/credenhill_park_R_zpssimll2ra.jpg) (http://)
Is it all a bit too neat? And who are the primary users; dog walkers or walking tourists? One fits into the category of social need and the other is a revenue creator. Does this example of a walking location inspire in the way our countryside might inspire, for example the young, to walk 10 even 15 miles just to explore?
This criticism might not be justified if such an example was not visible from the top of Credenhill (as shown by the sight line) and the possible ways to do such a route not recorded on every OS map until the compilation of the Definitive Map.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/MMmap_125k-sightline_R_zpsrvjj8wov.jpg) (http://)
The CLA policy on access does not tackle issues relate to this part of the equation, but this example does highlight the relationship between area and linear distance. The purple highlighted area of Credenhill encloses an area of 255 acres approximately, by walking twice around and over the hill it is possible to squeeze a 5 mile route out of it.
From the top the view is clear to Garnons Hill, a knoll in Nash Wood and Merryhill Wood, had the footpaths recorded on the OS map editions pre 1949 been included would it be possible to link these hills into a route.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/track%20elevation_named_R_zpsi5oj2len.png) (http://)
The sightline is 7 miles in total, suggesting a route maybe 10 to 15 miles and there is one hill, which I have found to have been bagged by a bagger, Garnons. It is a tump, I believe, is Nash Wood knoll one half of a Bump. There are two knolls there.
These are destinations or route targets sought by walkers, do the authors of a national policy on access even know of these features?
Rather than going back to the previous page this is the map with the old footpaths over drawn which have been left off the DM.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/overlay_paths_1.25kmap_A_zpsek86fawa.jpg) (http://)
in Green and Yellow.

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:44:15, 02/08/16
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/Capt_tregynon_red_zpsqvuzgyri.jpg) (http://)


Can you spot the difference between the last map in the previous post and this one?


Most of the mapped footpaths from the early prewar surveys by the ordnance survey went onto become PRoWs by being recorded on the Definitive Map. The green an d Yellow got left off the Definitive by Harry Cotterell's predecessors.
Whilst walking across the countryside shown on the Tregynon map, where I was verbally abuse for being on a PRoW, I was making a good direct cross country route to a bridge over river Severn. This was my destination and the end of a days walking of about 20 miles. There is a similarity here as the there is direction towards Byford shown by the old ways, close to the location of the old ford Bridge Sollers provides today's crossing of the Wye.


Was it coincidental that I got verbally abuse by a landowner on a PRoW at a time when the CLA and Sarah Slade were flooding their publications with anti access propaganda, also around the time Harry Coterell wrote;
Quote
Landowners would have to give more than they were taking away, thereby providing a net gain in access

Did HC's own knowledge of the history of his and neighbouring parishes suppression of all those old footpaths influence him to write these words, if this was the case and as president of the CLA when it published its policy on access. A markedly 'holier than thou' document, trumpeting the landowners as victims of national pressure groups pressing unreasonable claims for lost ways.
Why do I bring back this after a number of years? Sadly these arguments were never properly refuted, because they were written behind closed doors and I am pretty sure that attitudes and mindsets are embedded from that time.


It is appalling that this institutional dishonesty has not been explored and exposed when it directly restricts the valuable expansion of an access network, which will create additional income for the rural economy.











Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:58:59, 06/08/16

Reading Harry Cotterell's article, where he wrote;
 
Quote
"Our members know their own rights
of way better than anybody else,
they know which ones work and
which ones do not, which are
used and which are not. Perhaps
we should think about members
collaborating with neighbours
and parish councils to propose
improvements to the rights of way
network on their land."  
I can't help but question this, it seems that a decision has already been made on his estate, which shows landowners make decisions of this nature in a negative way rather than with a positive, outward looking motivation to preserve the very best our access network has to offer;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/garnons%20drive_1886_red_zpsoahriqqf.png) (http://)
1885 edition of OS map.
The red highlighted path, which leaves the old back drive to the front of Garnons House, indicates a way to the west to east footpath that bypasses the house. Where does the foot traffic creating this path come from? Some from dwellings along the road from the north? It is almost as if the Ordnance survey has left grey paths on the Explorer series as a 'Ghost from times past' pointing an accusatory finger at Garnons, apart from a 2.25 mile off road PRoW, which leads back to Staunton on Wye, other paths seem to prove the strength of way adding foot traffic towards the crossings of the Wye river.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/highlight_greypaths_1.25k_R_zpsqndf5v5e.jpg) (http://)


The grey paths are highlighted in red and show a continuity of way from the north and northwest toward Mansell Gamage. I think the slight westerly influence is probably due to the earlier crossing at Byford. But there is still a very strong line of travel approaching from the west. Shown by the bridleway and footpaths from Staunton on Wye. Where a sudden kick north reveals 2 miles of bridleway crossing Letton Lake. This can be seen on the Landranger Map;


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/highlighted_greypaths_1.50k_R_zpsdyb8wghg.jpg) (http://)


Is the highlighted grey path, just north of Worlds End, another gap in an important line of travel towards Garnons? Does this confirm the routes toward the river crossing at Byford.
The existing 2 miles of PRoW, crossing Letton Lake seems to be less effective as part of a county wide network because it is denied the historical connection to Bridge Sollers.


Is there more? The willingness of the authorities to compile the Definitive map more enthusiastically in areas to the north and west shows an interesting line of travel.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/sollers-kington_roadmap_zpsoue5s2lw.png) (http://)


Today it is possible to walk cross country from Staunton on Wye to Kington, Radnorshire. A little under 10 miles, if I were using the 1886 OS maps I could start this route from the ford, which gives crossing of the River Wye close to the real south end of Offa's Dyke.
If these lost ways were part of our access network the country bridge with comfortable walk ways at Bridge Sollers would be a valuable asset to the access network.


How much do landowners know about what makes access work? By reopening lost ways on his estate, could the access network be improved by Harry Cotterell making through routes to the Black Mountains and the Radnor Forest?
Continuity of way is a common factor shared by all the high earning routes, which make valuable income for the rural economies the pass through.

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:20:47, 18/08/16

The page about  lostways, which is part of the landowners policy on Access, might be interpreted by some as a lenghty whinge rather than an intelligent appraisal.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/lostways%20page_CLA_zpsvmzgunig.jpg) (http://)
The first example I looked at in this topic demonstrated how three areas without PRoWs interupted existing footpaths which could create a 10 mile linear route. This route I walked last summer, it was easily accessed from Shrewsbury by 2 regular bus services. Within those 3 'X zones' there were ways not recorded as rights of way directly linking up and adding to the those rights of way, which were sadly underused. Why because in their existing context; 'they go nowhere'.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/32NE_highlight-FPs_red_zpsztghc534.jpg) (http://)
The above first edition OS map, shows ways when people needed to walk (quote HC),
in many areas these routes form the basis of the public rights of way we use today. I have highlighted paths in this map published in 1886, Herefordshire XXXII.NE, green over those ways, which appear on today's Landranger and Explorer maps as PRoWs, and those highlighted in red are some of the routes used for walking, perhaps riding, which were not offered as rights of way, and therefore not included on the Definitive Map.
Does this look like a refusal to fully implement the intention of the 1949 act?
These lost ways could give the basis of good access to a river crossing at Bridge Sollers, they could create a great circular walk including local features of 10 miles or more and they are on a regular bus service out of Hereford.


This is also the map in which one will find Garnons, Harry Cotterell's home.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:18:24, 07/09/16
An X zone is an area without rights of way,  does this necessarily make it “Private Land” therefore “Keep Out”. The Scottish 2003 Land Reform Act has provided the means to allow the access to evolve into a form which suits a new age. Is it being used as such? Walking in the Galway area on the banks of the Solway Firth I found places where the responsible right of access could have been transformed into valuable circular walks from existing car parks set up to allow visitors to reach historic sites, these attract visitors, but the routes that could give further attraction to those areas do not seem to have been found, because they are not published on the websites giving local routes.
What is the cause of this reticence on the part of those local walkers, who could have published a more adventurous choice of routes? Perhaps walkers have not yet learnt to use this freedom nor used such examples as a tool to forge an understanding between landowner and leisure user.
The Scottish Mountaineering Club used figures in a recent dispute to show walking alone of all the access dependant pursuits puts 10 x the revenue into the Scottish economy compared with the combined income from all field sports. How much more revenue could the English economy generate if the occupiers of our countryside, made more effort to understand the actual framework of the access network and applied that understanding in a proactive way rather than a negative way collectively bundled up in a package labelled 'common sense'.

 
A rather interesting topic started on linear routes versus circular routes, X zones will drive a route out onto the highway and this influences the attraction of an area to a route. The reason for the topic here;
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=33096.15 (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=33096.15)
according to the OP, identified as HB, is a survey, which is motivated by tourism.  The opportunities walking offers to increase revenue into the rural community. The CLA has something to say about opportunities in the same document on 'common sense', which seems to resemble Harry Cotterell's 'honest john' style so obviously contradicted by the locality he grew up in and lives in.

 
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/opportunies_page_CLA_zpsn7fnzmhl.jpg)[/URL (http://)]

 
When 'honest john' has been born with a silver spoon and brought up to assume the legacies of his ancestors are true and honourable, accusing those, who disagree with his point of view, in such a way as the opening paragraph of the above page might be thought to be naive were the writer at a pre-GCSE level of education and only in need of further reading on the subject.

 
Sadly it does not tell the captive audience it is intended for how they might play a part in undoing some of the damage to the access network their forbears did and how they might participate in such a way to make the access network benefit others in the rural economy, who have not inherited huge estates.
The area shaded here is largely occupied by such an estate  (http://www.battlefield1403.com/page/farming-albrighton-estate)and it would be interesting to be able work out the linear total of access per area of occupation and compare it to the national average.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/battlefield%20_Xzone_R_zpsjjo8e4ol.jpg)[/URL (http://)]
The example resulting from HB's post shows how an area without access, forces routes away from objectives, which could have great potential today. How did old routes actually get started; did the occupier of the land suddenly say, 'here is a route, please walk along it' or did those needing to go in that direction just start using it?
As I have pointed out to HB in his topic (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=33096.15), the landowner is running a very successful “Farm Shop” type retail outlet, using the identity of the area of the Battle of Shrewsbury as a marketing strategy.
If landowners, the lifetime tenants of parts of the English countryside, were informed by their lobbying organisation (CLA) of the communal values of access, would this owner have seen the value of a permissive path along field margins better linking the those rights of way the estate uses in their image portfolio.
The level of PR skills that have gone into promoting the retail outlet can be seen here;
http://www.battlefield1403.com/ (http://www.battlefield1403.com/)
And linking the ethos of opportunity as promoted by Landowners collectively and this individual landowner is not so tenuous because it was in the Sparrow Café (http://www.battlefield1403.com/page/sparrows-cafe) I became familiar with some of the anti-access strategies devised by CLA's adviser on access in the Land and Business monthly magazine (https://www.cla.org.uk/members-area/land-business-magazine), where old copies are left as coffee table décor.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:54:23, 29/09/16
I have mentioned the reason for my interest in access was started by being verbally abused, whilst standing firmly on PRoW, by a landowner. Up to that point I would have thought him to be a farmer,  it was my subsequent reading of Land and Business, which made me realise why this individual had been indoctrinated into an attitude, which should have been stamped out in the last century.
L&B is the monthly publication of the Country Landowners' Association, previously mentioned, now several things started to make sense. I terminated my farming career by having the tenancies of the farms I worked bought out, so that a landowner could farm them himself, a neighbour on a much smaller farm was forced out by near bankruptcy a few years later. I was building a business totally unconnected with agriculture, but I heard of my neighbours misfortunes and that his relationship with our common landlord was very acrimonious. To my surprise he became a membership recruiting agent for the CLA, he certainly was unlikely to have a glowing recommendation from the landowner he had tenanted his farm from and he had no other qualifications. Except his family, a long line of professional farmers, many uncles and great uncles, who had successfully bought land from the failing aristocracy of the county between the wars, been successful in the post-war boom and bought farms for their sons.
Landowners were losing the foothold in the house of Lords and the needed membership, which had long been barred to those with professional farming abilities in favour of pedigree. The CLA had been founded in 1913, I think, just pre first World War, when the Liberal Party were about to impose Land Taxes, the bill to bring this about was thwarted by the outbreak of war. The NFU was founded around 1927, the basic reason, the Society of Master Butchers were rigging meat prices and farmers needed to break this strangle hold on a basic farm commodity. By the outbreak of the Second World War, a country traditionally used to importing food had to become self sufficient in food production, the organisation chosen to do this was the younger NFU, chosen by the War Cabinet despite connections between aristocracy and government. My Grandfather, who was a chairman of War Ag, told me in the 1950's of the Nazi connections in aristocratic families, but the real reason was the tenants were the real professionals in Agriculture. It was these farmers who raised the countries agricultural production from under 30% before the war to 100% by the end of the war.
For this reason the NFU continued to be the main negotiating body in post war years with government. An onslaught on this traditional membership amongst farmers became desperate for the CLA with the loss of hereditary peers in the H. of Lords.

 
Another result of those 2 Wars was the 1949 act resulting in the ProW  we enjoy, the between war years had seen every trick in the book being used to thwart attempts to open up the countryside by the landowners in the House of Lords and Clement Attlee's post war government used their majority   to force a form of access. It was not intended to be a shortcut for Lawyers and Estate Agents to byepass doing thorough property searches.

 
It was the intention of Clement Atlee that two generations' suffering should be rewarded by having the freedom of their countryside and this is a point that is not recognised by Harry Cotterell and the CLA. It was a PRoW officer who pointed out to me that many of the anomalies and gaps in the DM were due to the need for Parish Councils to implement the recording of RoWs and the control local landowners have had over these.

 
Why raise these points here? Cause and Effect. The access network earns huge revenues for the rural community and yet the landowners organisation refuse to recognise this by their denial of the part they played in the damaging flaws left the network by undemocratic action by their former members.

 
It is in the very Parish (and adjacent parishes) occupied by the author in chief of the CLA's policy on Access we see the reluctance to record those ways, which today could give access to major access assets.

 
In following up another topic, the intention of Shropshire's Access team to add linear routes to the Shropshire Way, an area with well below average access can be seen to have forced  a detour, which completely destroys the logic of a linear way. It is a shame that the poster DM (2 posts) has not followed up on this attempt to encourage members of the forum to comment on another website, without more input here.

 
Perhaps another reason for HB coming onto this forum and fishing for comment may be connected with Shrewsbury wishing to become a Walker Friendly town, a notch in the tourism tick list, there are some pleasant routes into the town from the surrounding countryside but do they go far enough to really push the Borough of Shrewsbury high up the list as 'walker friendly'. The measure of this can be seen in the surrounding Xzones, this means the town is surrounded be landowners, who have historically shown themselves reluctant to show welcome onto their land. This is reinforced by the historic ways foot traffic used to enter the market town not having been recorded as rights of way on the Definitive Map. Any walker using an Ordnance Survey map might get a sense of this from finding PRoWs, which end at Parish Boundaries, to the advantage of of the Estate where the way should continue through. The limitation of the surrounding access does not allow walkers safe routes to the destinations that should be linked to the town.

 
There is a story, told with relish by some landowners of a land agent, Gordon Miller by name, he acted for at least 7 Estates around the town and was also Chairman of the Atcham and Rural District  Council at the time of the formation of the Definitive Map. The ARDC as I seem to remember it was called completely surrounded the Borough of Shrewsbury and in the interest of his client Estates it is told that Gordon Miller 'stripped out' many of the old paths from inclusion in the DM and so are not PRoW today. If they were there, what would be the impact on today's access network? Is it worth speculating on the value of added continuity of way, a real 'Walker Friendly Town' where the surrounding hospitality matches that hoped for by this title?

 
This post is an example of how the embedded attitude of landowners completely undermines the efforts of the wider community to move forward into the 21st Century. Shrewsbury's intention to become a Walker Friendly town will surely be a poor accolade with 8 estates surrounding, all landscaped into prime countryside, reluctant to share this natural amenity. As a speculative exercise   it might be interesting to explore the possibilities of an access network that could have developed with those old ways in place and as an extra ingredient imagine a mindset of landowners wishing to be inclusive rather than exclusive.

 
In a time when it was not the duty of individuals on public bodies to declare 'other interests', I will place Gordon Miller on the map, he lived in a house on the Attingham Estate owned by Lord Berwick and now National Trust. The adjoining Longner Estate also used his services. So to start by  using this example of a PRoW ending abruptly at a Parish boundary and the loss of continuance being to the advantage of the privacy of the House and Estate in the Parish, where the way ceases. I can also place Gordon Miller, Estate Agent, on this map.

 
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/longner%20lost%20way_red_zps1ze30isj.jpg)[/URL (http://)]

 
Arrow 4 places Gordon Miller's home. Arrows 1 points to the anomaly of a PRoW ending at a Parish Boundary and Arrow 2 indicates the other end of a way once shown on earlier OS maps. Arrow 3 indicates the position of an ancient bridge, which no longer exists, which may have indicated that this way took heavier traffic to the ferry, other than the recorded footpath, shown at Arrow 1.
Had this way been on the Definitive Map it is possible that the value of a river crossing, once provided by the ferry, could have been included when the bridge was built for the A5(T). This crossing would put the summit of Haughmond Hill (Trig Point) within 2.3 miles walking distance of the south east of the town.
An interesting possibility might be seen here; 300yds downstream from the ferry a weir is mapped. This is the remains of one of several fish weirs, which can be found along the Severn north and south of the town. I have read that there is a connection with this fish weir, which we as children used to call the Salmon Trap, with the monks of Haughmond Abbey. I think that this weir is unique from the others as it is stone based, others were wood pilings. Should the idea occur to restore the fish weir as part of Shrewsbury's history, the means of crossing the river here, so close to old ways leading to the ferry, might be revived. A fish weir comes with a byelet, and island which creates a narrow channel between the end of the weir and the far bank. A short enough distance for a small bridge, a restored stone weir could have a walkway above so the means of crossing the river in a very attractive rural setting, with a strong historical meaning, on foot and well away from the traffic flow of the town.
This would put Lord Hill's Column in Shrewsbury a 3 mile walk from the trig Point on Haughmond Hill. It creates a second walkable link with the towns nearest and main local walking destination. But it could be a far more useful feature of attraction, there is the remains (segments of PRoWs) of two market day routes, the one using the ferry to reach Shrewsbury 5-6 miles east from Withington and Roddington and another where country folk also walked to Wellington markets. Although these routes have been interrupted sufficient remain to provide a corridor of countryside joining the two market towns. All it needs is the goodwill of those, who have inherited the obstructions, to see the value of allowing these ways to reopened.
A cross Shropshire linear route focused on Shrewsbury and Wellington is 50 – 60 miles, in 1990 a survey on the Pennine Way by Natural England showed it's earning power to be around £8000 per mile per year, for every £5000 of earning power 55 miles will yield £275,000 per annum. Actually the potential earning power of good routes now seems to be much higher, is it a good route; answer, the one I walked is 'yes' if I take out of the equation resentful growers, hostile landowners and obstructions due to being off-piste, on the Wellington – Shrewsbury section. Shrewsbury to the Welshpool is again fraught with unattractive options, where the legacy of Gordon Miller seems have been at work.
 
Question must be, what is the cost of landowners resentment of the 1949 Act and their obstruction in the compilation of the Definitive Map. West of Shrewsbury there is a huge X zone, largely centred on an Estate I know was one of Gordon Millers. It forced the Severn Way north of the river to a long stretch of tarmac, it also hides one of the best river crossings of the Severn, which is another anomaly and a story for another day.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 14:41:34, 23/10/16
This is the 1900 OS map of footpaths approaching the Preston Ferry, it's cartography is clearer than the 1st edition 1860's but the path layout is much the same. No OS maps before the 1860's so I cannot speculate how the ferry was reached before the canal was built and altered the landscape.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/canal%20tunnel%20paths_map_red_zpsu49z7r1p.jpg)[/URL (http://)]
The green dotted lines are routes that are PRoW's  today and the red dots show routes left off the DM.
 The fact that there are links from either end of the tunnel, suggests that some foot traffic opted for the ferry rather than wait during the slow legging through the tunnel (tunnel without footpath) and the longer approach to the canal's terminus.
A few days ago I walked this part of the river Severn and took this photo of the Ferry House,
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/ferry%20house_zpsikoqgmv4.jpg) (http://)
 I suspect it is the same house and buildings as mapped on the original survey and this would seem to suggest the estate had built a house and building for a fairly high status family in those days and this would seem to show that the ferry provided a high income to maintain the rents this property would need to yield to the estate.
Where did the flow of foot traffic come from to supply a high regular income and does this give a hint that footpaths shown on old maps are more than short cuts of yesteryear and old ways to work.
A non existent ferry may not seem to be a good reason to keep open such old ways but when a new road provides a new river crossing within a short distance from the old, not to have planned these into the new network seems to be an incredible waste of assets.
When the organisation claiming, to further the interests of the owners of land, fosters an anti public access attitude it means that landowners will bury evidence of historic access and benefits this may have bought to them, rather than offering this sort of evidence at the development stage. In this case the ownership has been in the same family passed from father to son and new development could be in the pipeline as there is a move to re-open the canal.
A further loss of public asset can be seen here;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/ferry%20arch_zpsdngmcvhn.jpg)[/URL (http://)]
This valuable asset, built by Great Western Railways, has lain unused since the creation of the Definitive Map (perhaps longer) and will no doubt continue to do so. The lostway which gives a route from the ferry north giving a way through the railway embankment does not give any useful access because two different estates own land on either side of the railway. Despite both families having a long interest in horses and equestrian businesses on either side the obvious asset as a bridleway has never seen this access point used.
 It has always in my lifetime been fenced of on both sides.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:05:56, 07/12/16
Identifying a destination is not as obvious as it may seem. Old OS maps do show footpaths, which are obviously not for public use, but these are not as readily found as the landowner press coverage on access likes to assume. I remember all the cottages on the farm I grew up on having substantial toilet facilities at the far end of their gardens, looking at 6'' to the mile OS maps it is possible to find the same dotted lines used to show routes of several miles long and also the find much shorter routes shown from a building to a smaller building.  


A 'shortcut cut of yesteryear' or 'way to work' is probably identified by a relative brevity of length, compare a new map with an old map and fill in the gaps and a broader picture seems to emerge.


The map in the previous post shows relative short distances of path to a destination 'The Ferry', in this map, where purple overlay shows lostways, green highlights today's Rights of Way and key objectives marked red.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/ferry%20approach_1-50kOS_red_zpswcaafjbi.jpg) (http://)


The consequences of these lostways can start to be identified, by more than a mile of a major cross country route "The Severn Way" being diverted onto a busy B road, which was once the A5, and was the place where Lady Berwick the last hereditary owner of Attingham Hall was killed in a road accident. The route various forum members have followed to effect an East 2 West trans-Shropshire passage is sandwiched between a ten foot high red-brick wall and speeding traffic.


This topic set out looking at Areas without 'Off Road' access and how they affect our modern day access and how the network can allow us to translate it into the routes we would like to follow. The land behind the high red brick wall is owned by the National Trust, many go to Attingham Park to walk within an enclosed area, which is 'Parkland', but the National Trust also owns several thousand acres of farmland, which during the 2nd WW was used as an airfield. The Atcham or Norton Airfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Atcham) was returned to agricultural use shortly after the war but the old footpaths across it where not reinstated. Another X Zone and partially administered by the National Trust.


On another outdoor forum a year or so ago I asked if lostways were important. The only answer I got from a member with much mountaineering experience as well a lowland walking was they are an unnecessary distraction. That forum no longer exists though it was connected with the publications marketed for walkers. Are lostways, which can be identified by looking for them in large areas devoid of off road access, a red herring?


The Potential routes these lost ways offer, which I have walked with Mrs BWW, are very attractive alternatives. We walked them completely unnoticed by the relevant landowners (or their minions) and without doing any damage to the countryside.


But more important is their strategic worth, which I believe makes the surrounding and interconnecting network more effective.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: histman on 00:43:47, 16/12/16
Thanks BWW for continuing to post on this topic, it's one that I keep returning to.

The reference to Gordon Miller, a Land Agent, is very interesting and not one that I had considered. Many paths and bridleways around here were not added to the Definitive Map in the 1950s due to the actions of very influential local landowners who were often the chairmen of the local Parish Councils and filled in the returns.

The old map of Cotterell's patch with the green and red annotation is very powerful.  Can you post or email me a version with more resolution as I have recently joined a local LAF sub-committee on Unrecorded Ways and would like to share it with them. By the way how did you annotate this old map? Online or on paper then scanned?

Thanks again. histman
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:43:02, 21/12/16
Hi Histman,
Thankyou for your continued interest, it is most supportive.


I am working on more examples concerning the effect Gordon Miller had on Shropshires access map. No one has yet even tried to tackle the economic consequences of these lostways and geography of Shrewsbury's relationship with the surrounding countryside is a prime example.


Ironically a number of farmers, who know me and my walking interests try to tease me with their knowledge of Gordon Miller and yet these facts makes no impact on the County Council.


Interested that you are now on an Access Forum, I did over my 2yrs nearly 5, but can no longer make my views known in that place.


I have PM'ed you and there is a drop box link to download a .jpeg version of the highlighted map, 4.8MB so I hope it shows enough detail.

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:52:56, 04/01/17
The next map I am working on is directly connected with Gordon Miller. It was on a walk, when I was exploring the approaches to the Maginnes Bridge, I met a farmer, I have known since by teens, as young farmers we had spent much time together. I had spotted the strategic importance of east to west access of this bridge, which is an anomaly. It has rights of way to it from both sides but no right of way over the bridge itself. It is in Wales, within the Powys CC but right on the border so probably not considered a burning issue but it is the only non highway river crossing in many miles upstream or downstream.
I was climbing over a gate, it was a very hot day and I had been forced off route by overgrown hedges, when a brand new range rover pulls up within my restricted vision caused by my cap slipping down over my eyes. The Range Rovers off side window opens about 2 feet from my nose and Mike H leans across and says 'hello'.
I chose to finish my walk and catch up with some local gossip, during which we discussed Gordon Miller. It is not so much what he told me, but the way he told me, because Mike's father had been active in local politics at the time. The information he gave was Gordons Miller's connection with the Loton Estate, Sir Richard Leighton the current owner's father would have been alive then. He acted as estate agent and large amount of footpaths were left off the area west of Loton Park, which appears to be the reason why the Severn Way is forced so far away from the river, when its natural route should have been to follow the 60m contour line south of the river between Coedway and Ford.
Over the years as a member of this forum, members have posted about east to west walks through the heart of Shropshire, focused on Shrewsbury, all have taken the Severn Way as their route. This does not give the best quality of way, had some of the old ways been in place as RoW's they would have had better choices on how and where to reach the Welsh border. This does not reflect well on the 'Hospitality' offered by the county of Shropshire. It probably costs the county in lost revenue and it's rate payers lost opportunities.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/1-50k%20Xzone_zpsa9u6idxv.png) (http://)


This exclusion zone is really several side by side but it is the east to west connectivity that makes the 3000 or so acres it occupies so strategically negative on such an extensive area to the west and east.


Three bridges over the River Severn highlighted in red, Coedway is east of the confluence of the River Vyrnwy but gives access to Pant/Lanymynech, the Llandrinio bridge to Llansantffraid, Vyrnwy and beyond but the Maginnis bridge is the GEM. But you reading this are walkers so I will leave you to find out why.


The footpath approach to the Maginnis Bridge from Loton is highlighted in green.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:11:08, 13/01/17
The trivialization of the access network by such phrases as 'shortcuts of yesteryear' has appeared in articles and comments by landowners, when describing incidents relating to access.  
It was the patterns of an overall picture in this instance that first drew my mind to trying to understand the difference between a section of footpath and a 'way'.
Add to the continuity of a series of so called shortcuts, a purpose, then a way seems to emerge.


The OS have continued to show old footpaths in the above area to this day as 'grey paths' once mapped, as can be seen in older editions and often described as 'FP'. The proviso that they may not necessarily be rights of way is printed on the bottom of each map, but the purpose of way appears to be the same as other 'ways', which have the same destination, and have been designated 'Rights of Way' by adjacent parishes.


In the 1910 edition of the OS map for this area I have highlighted the B4393 in brown as the River Severn in blue to give a boundary to this area.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/33c_XXXIII-NW_alberbury-ford_paths_zpsnzjmilnf.jpg) (http://)
The Ways which seem to show continuity of way, but are not today RoWs, are highlighted in red and RoWs green.


The main Purpose of way would appear to be the ferry at Shrawardine and extends all the way back to Alberbury. The disused railway had a station on the N side of the river, but there are signs of a loading platform in the Little Shrawardine side, perhaps for milk, which would have been produced on the farms in this area.


So the old routes this area a pretty complete from the East and non existent from the West. Had these old ways been included on the Definitive Map, how valuable would the complete way from Shrewsbury to the Breiddens have been or could be?
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: histman on 15:00:05, 14/01/17
My research into how paths were added to the Definitive Map [DM] in the 1950s (in South Derbyshire and NW Leicestershire) seems to show that parishes that had Parish Councils fared better than those with Parish Meetings (no elected councillors). This was because Parish Meetings were usually dominated by the local lord of the manor (though many Parish Councils were also run by landowners).

In a parish I have been studying, Catton in Derbyshire, the chairman of the Parish Meeting was also the local squire and owner of Catton Hall (now used for pop concerts and outdoor events). According to him practically no paths existed near the Hall and those that did weren't used or were "workmen's" routes.

In the map below paths in red (on old OS maps as FPs) weren't added to the DM and those in green were; the yellow line shows the parish boundary. Dryden's Walk is still shown on the OS Explorer map but doesn't exist on the ground. An attempt was made to add it to the DM in the 1960s by a member of the Open Spaces Society but a note on the correspondence (by a Clerk at County Hall, Matlock) states "leave it for a rainy day".

(http://www.23hq.com/23666/27942656_a0300ef58195c31504a9d95ca86100ae_large1k.jpg)

http://www.23hq.com/histman/photo/27942656/original
===

In your example, BWW, perhaps Alderbury with Cardeston parish had a Parish Meeting in the 1950s; only a trip to the local records office would reveal this.

Looking at the 1910 map in your post it looks like a footpath on the north side of the River Severn used the railway bridge to cross to Little Shawardine as well as the ferry. Such a shame that there is no path today from Little Shawardine to meet the other existing path to the old ferry site along the south bank which is now a dead-end.

Referring back to a previous post I am still trying to work out why Maginnis bridge was a GEM! Please enlighten us :-)

Thanks for all your hard work on this fascinating topic.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: ninthace on 21:29:52, 15/01/17
Some you win it seems. BWW is right about landowners, see names of objectors
http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/news/North-Cumbrian-paths-to-be-made-rights-of-way-705d0555-5eab-4cff-a3e7-b165ead5e215-ds
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: histman on 10:27:15, 16/01/17
Thanks for the link to the Cumbrian path decision.
Pretty sure there'll be an appeal when/if the order is made.

The "alternative energy holding company" Roxlena mentioned in the report seems to be a rather "shadowy" organisation.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:59:23, 17/01/17
Thanks to Histman for this, The Catton examples is very interesting and shows up another anomaly. Those involved in the recovery of 'Lostways' seem to be overly concentrating on the actual way, this is natural as the legal recovery is very precise. My interest has been for a more general overview, which is the scale of the corruption of the definitive map and the actual pattern of a complete access network, so I can understand how it should be.
I toyed with the idea of highlighting the civil parishes in the first example on page 1 (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=30054.msg439019#msg439019).
The real damage Gordon Miller did was to the Borough of Shrewsbury, who at this moment in time are trying to gain status as a 'walker friendly town'. His position as chairman of the Shrewsbury and Atcham Rural District Council, coincided with 7 Estates he managed as a land agent, surrounding the town. The protection from Rights of Way he thought he was giving to his clients now directly compromises this new initiative the Borough is trying to make to enhance the tourism trade.
To bring this corruption more to light finding the history of these parish meetings etc. may come later or someone else may pick up on it.
Back to Catton, the original excuse by the landowner 'old ways to work' ignores the fact that 200 years ago the formative time, which the early surveys by the OS which captured the basis of the access network we use today. The Manors, Halls and grand houses, the HQ's of the surround estates were the prime employers and the center of commerce for the area.
The continuity of way shown by the footpaths, served more than employers going work and the estate house was a hub of social and commercial activity. The legacy of continuity of way of several miles of distance cannot be ignored because it may now focus on a building and grounds, which time has changed its purpose and position in social and commercial order.
The fundamental misunderstanding in the landowners policy is they do not recognise that they are the reason we have to have Rights of Way. As Ninthace brings to our attention the corporate and individual identity of landowner interest, which opposes the re-establishment of access on principle, this is largely due to the policy of the CLA, which cannot admit to the corruption of the definitive map as so obviously shown in the example of Garnons.


I do not know the local geography of Catton, maybe it has some similarities with Loton Park, the east to west continuity of way would become effective if the need of an modern access network allowed the connection through the area of old parkland bringing together continuity of way of two or more historical approaches to these one time hubs of community activity.


Histman wants to know why I think the Maginnis Bridge is a Gem. It is an ugly bridge, a section of ex WD Bailey bridge by the look of it concreted over, but is is the approaches on both sides which set it apart from the other alternatives of crossing the River Severn. A better understanding of Linear Walking would help understand it's importance, but it was day linear walks, which drew my attention to this anomalous bridge, and the certainty that a very fine LDP could be hidden in the path if could create if we had the Scottish access rights.


Perhaps a separate topic on the Maginnis Bridge, have been turning up some photos.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:42:22, 29/01/17
I don't think I will spend anymore time on the Ford - Alberbury X zone at the moment, apart to just wonder why Gordon Miller left these particular ways off the definitive map. I don't suppose there is anyone alive today who might know, unless I get the chance to have a chat with Sir Michael Leighton, in a garrulous mood. I suspect Gordon Miller engineered the sale of a number farms for Sir Richard Leighton so that he could continue a lifestyle that was threatened in the 1920's, if this was the case, it is more than possible he retained the shooting rights over those farms. Does not seem likely, if it was for pheasant shooting but if the estate had a reputation for it's partridge shooting this alters this line of thought to highly likely. The partridge coveys have probably been reduced by post war agricultural practice, this could have been entirely different in the period up to WW1.
There are large open fields of flat land either side of the Alberbury Road, good ground for partridges, if these were driven north the would land on a north facing slope or the Severn flood plane raising the likelyhood of their return to the warm ground they were driven from. Did Gordon Miller think that the 'good life' of Edwardian pre-war would return and that the Loton Park lifestyle would recover despite the loss of their land.
The old ways mainly centered on access to the station, which became active again during WW2 may not offer a direct link from Ford to Coedway (and the Breiddens) but if they were there today walkers may well have been using them and the value of the 60m contour more apparent. As well as the historical importance of the Motte & Bailey, Ferry, Ford, Fish Weir and remains of the Grandmontine Abbey & Priory.


I find little comparative historical interest on the north side of the river where the Severn Way has been forced along tarmac highway on the Flood Plain.


To sum up the X zone blocks two active access areas being joined. Is clearly defined to the North by the River and the South the Alberbury Road, which is a busy trunk route into Wales, fully extended into its boundary margins with no appreciable verge. Yet it has a history of very active access, which could have been tailored to meet 20th and 21st century use.


Since starting this particular part of this topic my interest has stayed off to two other areas;
Exploring a bridge at Apley which allows a private crossing of the River Severn raises the question of the validity of Formalized Estated being Private Areas.
Another area with no access and no historical access being mapped since the OS started in the 19th Century, not being the subject of scrutiny, when destinations, which fall into the interest category of modern day walking and tourism, which could be made accessible.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:35:10, 07/02/17
I started this topic to try to get an understanding of how areas of our countryside without off-road access affect the overall access network, in my previous post I stirred a memory of another topic. This was started by a fabulous walk Mrs BWW and I enjoyed visiting and viewing the largest Mere of the Cheshire / Shropshire Meres. Trouble is it is bang in the middle of 'so called' private land to coin a 'trumpism'.
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=24803.0
The Scottish right of access was born out of the need to reach destinations/features, a campaign of trespass preceded the 2003 Land Reform Act, as I understand it, and you have only to spend a bit of time on this forum in the Scottish section to find out how popular reaching particular features is, they are Munros. The result of this very wise bit of legislation is the commercial out performing of walking as a tourism attraction against the sum of annual national earnings of all field sports combined, by ten times.
Is having a major natural feature locked away inside a "Private Estate" costing other businesses income, who might be able to benefit from it? In the context of route design how important are these features? The can provide 'destinations' for routes, which lie outside of the X zone created by these areas of formalized parkland created for a totally different social order in Regency and Georgian times. Then they were created for leisure and today they may well be contributing to the destruction of our country hospitality suites. Village pubs disappearing all the time, how many of those little blue pint pots on our OS maps are actually serving a refreshing pint, when you successfully map read your way to it.


In the Alberbury X zone Loton Park blocks off the linking together of good lengths of continuous way where the truly and faithfully filled in Definitive Map routes on the Welsh side, border only a few hundred yards from Loton Park, could have been linked to a continuity of way lost by maladministration.


Continuity of way between natural features and destinations has earning power for the national economy, so its seems logical that those areas without access are not just not contributing but are costing. Just looking at the earning power of those ways, which have been measured, it would imply that these figures could be in the Millions if not 10's of Millions per county.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:50:05, 20/02/17
Last summer I took this picture from the south parapet of the north of two road bridges over the River Roden, which lie about 2 miles apart;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/IMG_1810_kingfish_red_zps1bikfz2i.jpeg) (http://)
In between these road bridges there is a footbridge, which carries the Shropshire Way along it's meandering course around Shropshire. A bridge over a river of this size is no mean construction, yet it appears to have no purpose other than to allow the Shropshire Way to leave a road joining Shawbury to Roden and regain countryside, which would have been better served by the natural terrain on the River Roden's east bank.
Did this bridge once join two communities together, did it serve as a way to work for farm workers or was it a 'Shortcut of Yesteryear' originally forged from a tree falling across the river. There is a Chapel at Poynton, part now forming the end of a farm building and seems to have been constructed from similar masonry found in the ruins of Haughmond Abbey, over two and a half miles away?
Is this bridge a valuable item of infrastructure in the asset column of Shropshire's Countryside account?
1). It is deep in heart of countryside.
2). Attractively positioned.


It does somehow it seems to be a bridge without purpose.
It is also situated between two X zones.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/haughton-high%20ercall%20Xzones_1-50kmap_red_zpslsy916ns.jpg) (http://)
High lighted in green are public footpaths, which give a continuity of way from the west, where there was a ferry crossing the River Severn at Uffington, east to Haughton, where it ceases. The same direction of travel reappears at the footbridge at Poynton, being strengthened by a spur from High Ercall, continues through Walton and ends at Osbaston.


The Red highlighted line shows as the crow flies direction to Newport, Shropshire.
A different picture appears when a the 1880 and then the 1990 OS map is bought into the equation, Poynton FB is in yellow highlight;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/haughton2poynton%20path_1900_red_zps9nhnby3p.png) (http://)
Is this a relevant Lostway?
Does it provide a reason for the existence of a quaintly position footbridge?
Because nearly a mile and a quarter of continuous footpath appears to give  direction, purpose and destination to over 5 miles of way.




 
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: Andies on 14:48:14, 21/02/17
As always very interesting BWW. I think the more anyone looks at maps the more obvious it becomes that there are so many lost ways, and even more so when you look at older maps. Most people realise that the indication of say a footpath on older OS maps does not mean it is necessarily a ROW now, but so often it is obvious from examination of maps, and indeed on the ground, that these were ROW that were in use. Sadly the failings of the recording of these onto the definitive map has resulted in many lost ways.

My own research has been limited to a few local villages in Suffolk and it quickly becomes apparent that there are more than enough in most villages. I have a particular interest in the village of Great Barton in Suffolk where there are many such lost ways. I have it on first hand evidence that the Parish Council in the late 1970's, when they had an opportunity to address which ROW's should be on the definitive map, took the view just to record those that people still used! This of course served the interests of some more than others!

Many footpaths admittedly rarely used by then in the vicinity of the church were lost, and in any event were also ploughed out, and access points sometimes blocked, albeit many of the old routes do still exist as farm tracks etc... It was all very self fulfilling, nobody uses the footpaths, well they're no longer there to use, they're not on the definitive map so it's a trespass etc...all gone and hopefully forgotten!

It seems to me that it will take an a very determined individual or organisation to get any of these lost ways reinstated. From what I can see most people don't seem bothered enough to do anything, and the system isn't easy for the lone individual to pursue matters. The 2026 deadline looms and then I suppose they really will be lost ways forever. Suffolk ROW Department struggle to even put up replacement signposts within a few years, they're clearly under resourced, and simply cannot effectively deal with lost ways even if they wanted to.

Great Barton does have a particular claim to fame in the context of ROW's as a footpath in the village is the subject of the "Andrews' Case" concerning the Inclosure Acts and the setting out of footpaths therein. This case and various follow ups was brought by John Andrews of the Ramblers Association. The ruling in the appeal on this means that at least one additional footpath may make in onto the definitive map, but it goes without saying that the landowners aren't happy, but hopefully there is little they can now do to stop this actually eventually happening? I was lucky enough to discuss the Case with John Andrews, who is well known especially for his work in Suffolk, and indeed elsewhere. I suspect he is responsible for recovering more lost ways than anyone.

I also think that the Andrews Case is going to be more effective in getting some lost ways back onto the maps, than individual cases, as so often the last 50 years have seen the decline in use of footpaths, the death of most people that ever did use them (so no witnesses to give evidence of use), and of course the removal of evidence on the ground. In comparison it's surprising how confident landowners are that no one has ever walked a route over the past 150 years, and that there was never a footpath on the ground, and if there was it was just for farmworkers!

I fear lost ways are something of a lost cause overall. A few will try to reinstate them, but unless someone such as the Ramblers really get on board with the issue, nothing will really happen before 2026. As someone many miles from substantial areas of access land I rely on the ROW network week in week out to enable me to get out and walk. Perhaps the most sensible answer is changing the access rules for England to give us more, but I cannot see that happening anytime soon. Perhaps I should write to the CLA and express my views :D :D
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:08:37, 23/02/17
Thanks Andies for your contribution, your fear that lostways are a lost cause is mine also. The cutoff date, I suspect was a political expedient to ensure the 2000 CRoW act passed through the House of Lords, no thought of their value, because this was unknown territory, a completely arbitrary decision based on no study at all.
Can interest purely from trying to understand how a more complete access network might be, help?  This interest is helping me understand how walking works as a pastime and has bought to my attention more about the structure a routes than purely following green dots on a map.


If by writing my observations here may provide those more active in the pursuit of reestablishing lost ways with additional ideas can do no harm. It also gives me ideas were I might next like to walk.


There is within your post an interesting point;
Quote
I have it on first hand evidence that the Parish Council in the late 1970's, when they had an opportunity to address which ROW's should be on the definitive map, took the view just to record those that people still used!
Based on an Act passed on 1949. The time delay it took to enact the will of Parliament is an added pointer to the maladministration of the creation of the Definitive Map.
Quote
Perhaps the most sensible answer is changing the access rules for England to give us more,


Funny you and Harry Cotterrel were in agreement here in one of his articles as vice president of the the CLA, sadly he changed his tune when as president he published the landowner's policy on access.


Perhaps you should write to them :D :D 
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: Andies on 15:36:51, 23/02/17
I agree with all that you say BWW. Despite my interest in lost ways I suspect I will never actually take the lead in trying to get one reinstated unless I find myself with more time on my hands than I currently do. But like you the study of maps and the apparent "black holes" thereon has led me to explore areas in a way that I previously wouldn't have. As a consequence of this it has encouraged me to stray from "the righteous way"; a wonderful term from some of your previous postings, and one that I really like  O0

It is probably not surprising that you referred to my comment about the Great Barton Parish Council of the time only recording ROW that they considered to still be used. When I spoke to John Andrews he also found this interesting, and if my memory serves me correctly he said this approach had not been uncommon on Parish Councils at that time, and had in fact stemmed from direction given by the old West Suffolk County Council!

He also referred to many parishes in Suffolk that hadn't actually had a single ROW recorded initially, although his efforts had clearly addressed this in very many cases. The sad thing to me is that in so many cases there were clearly ROW in existence up until 50 to 75 years ago, and often more recently, but the changing face of rural life in particular has meant these are now lost. Routes marked on OS maps were obviously used but this does not provide sufficient evidence of a ROW, and so much of it seems to come down to the provision of other evidence. I cannot believe that the OS recorded a footpath on a map if there wasn't actually one in existence on the ground. What it was used for may be another matter!

Given that there seems to be considerable emphasis placed on having evidence of the use of a route when such claims for lost ways are made, I have for a while been thinking that I might usefully maintain some appropriate records of my own use of such routes, should the need ever arise to support such a claim in the future. Whether evidence that I actually walked such a claimed route a couple of times would actually help is of course another matter, but it does give me considerable satisfaction to have actually walked along these routes regardless of their current official status  :)

I have recently compiled a review of all the current ROW in Great Barton and detailed all of the existing problems with regard to broken and missing signage, blocked routes, and other issues. A total of 19 issues  :(  I had previously reported most of these to Suffolk's ROW Department two years previously, and despite reminding them, nothing had happened. I have subsequently also now reported these via the Ramblers Pathwatch facility. The Parish Council have now discussed these issues and been in contact with the ROW Department who have assured the PC that all matters will be addressed within one month! So perhaps this is a better way of approaching existing issues, and I hope especially as there is the outstanding issue of the modification order for a new footpath resulting from the Andrews' Case, that interest in the villages ROW have been awakened. Whether this will extend to other lost ways is another matter!
 
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:49:15, 26/02/17
Again Andies thanks for your interest, I applaud the work and effort you have put into access around Gt Barton. I suppose 5 yrs on a LAF is a reasonable contribution of effort by some standards but the chair of the LAF I was a member of seemed to think I was slacking by not being out there>>>>repairing stlies and cutting brush. He is a hereditary landowner and born to ordering the lower classes into the activities they should be getting on with.


Again I applaud those who take on campaigning for individual lost ways, ramblers or horse riders, but I somehow think I am a lone voice, when I make the connection between the commercial value of the access network and it's potential to create revenue for rural communities, a point completely ignored by the CLA in there self congratulatory Policy on Access.


In coming upon the evidence that has prompted this line of thinking, it is the collective of lostways as shown by areas without access and this would be  a dangerous path for an individual to pursue. I believe when an individual starts the process of reestablishing a lost way there is a commitment to cost. So if a multiple of cases were started the risk of having costs awarded against the originator of the claim is multiplied. This risk highlights the weakness of the placing multiple or even one claim on the The Register of Formal Application, which preserves the possible reclaiming of a lostway after 2026.


As you have shown it is with the old Shire County Councils that some of the original fault lies that, so is it up to individuals to bear the cost of forging a national asset that could be earning rural communities £10,000s even £100,000s per mile, which are the quantities shown by continuous ways that have already published figures.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: Andies on 12:31:30, 03/03/17
Thank you for your kind words BWW. Whilst Great Barton Parish Council did thank me for my efforts in respect to the villages' ROW, I suspect the next few weeks will determine how successful getting the PC involved will have been in rectifying the many issues that Suffolk ROW Department have failed to address, despite my individual efforts in the past. Notwithstanding the time since I originally reported most of these issues to the ROW Department (2 to 3 years in most cases!), the ROW Department response seemed to have more to do with telling the Parish Clerk that I should really report these direct rather than via the Parish Council! I also hoped that going through the Parish Council might generate some interest in the villages' ROW on their part, but this doesn't appear to have been the case. Many Parish Council's do at least have a footpath officer but not Great Barton. That said they cannot even fill the vacancies on the Parish Council.

One interesting thing (well I think so!) is that the on going housing development from Bury St Edmunds that is set to now march virtually up to Great Barton Church in the next few years,  should see the establishment, according to some plans I have seen, of some new ROW. In one case a "new" ROW would actually run along the exact line of one of the most obviously historical "lost ways". Perhaps strangely the economics and requirements of housing development may actually help save an otherwise lost way? I suspect the former landowners will have no objection to this "new" ROW once the land is sold for development but would not be so keen if someone put in a claim for the lost way prior to this!

I am interested in what you say about the value of the ROW network and have been giving this a bit of thought. I fully get the value this has for our health both physical and mental, but I wonder how easily this value is quantifiable to your typical landowner. A few weeks ago I walked past a line of guns in a neighbouring village (they were actually in part stood on a ROW whilst shooting!), I suspect paying often £1,000 a gun for the days shooting; and I wonder how I would convince a landowner about the value of the ROW across their land in comparison? I suspect given a few other issues on this particular estate with regard to ROW, that this landowner would have preferred I wasn't there at all; disturbing his birds I suspect, and getting in the way of their fun, not that they actually stopped shooting as we walked past. I was actually very nearly hit by a falling partridge and Mrs A didn't like coming into such close contact with the guns.

In areas where there is a clearly more defined tourist industry and walking is prominent in that I can see how the argument can be more easily made for the value of ROW, albeit such areas will often have access land so the same issues perhaps don't apply? I would love to think that a rural Suffolk landowner would see value in the ROW on their land but I think it would be a big ask from what I have seen. We do have a few "trails" running through Suffolk but these are far from being prominent in walking terms, and I just don't think as it stands today that landowners see the value in the ROW network  :(
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:51:27, 04/03/17
Perhaps this quote from elsewhere on the forum will help with your understanding of shooting in the broader economic picture;
Quote
“Given his previous support for the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, we would have hoped for stronger support.”
He reminded Mr Swinney, who is also Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth in the Scottish Government that many walkers travel a significant distance to access the hills and in 2009 the value to the Scottish economy from walking tourism was estimated to be £533m a year.
The MCofS said, according to Scottish Natural Heritage, the overall contribution to the Scottish economy from all field sports – game shooting, deer stalking and angling – is £136m a year.
Above quote came from topic here;
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=26296.msg383077#msg383077
£1000 per day may be a bit dated, £35 to £45 per bird shot seems to be the going rate when I accessed some websites recently. It suggests that there is quite a bit of competition between shoots on the high end to attract guns with big pocket books, whereas many estates run their shoots for private entertainment. The days when these shoots employed full time keepers and underkeepers are long gone, most I come across are part time. A point Marion Shoard makes in her book 'This Land Our Land' is the income generated from access is mostly connected to hospitality employment within the rural community. The lesser Income from field sports goes directly into the pocket of the landowner.
The need to keep people out of the countryside during the laying season of pheasants is no longer relevant to the efficiency of a shoot as these shoots no longer employ the keepers to protect the necessary number of breeding wild birds, they now buy in reared birds and release them in the late summer. The management of these are quite compatible with an access network of 5km/1km.square as can be seen in many parts of the country.


Your point about 'health and well being' was supported, in my experience on a LAF, by a presentation given to us by a member of the area Health authority, and in today's planning it should be seen important that new developments are integrated into the access network. This point represents a hidden 'income' as something like 60% of the NHS treated conditions are related to lack of physical fitness and 30% of the population are clinically unfit.


Three sources of earning power of specific ways have come to my notice namely;
SWCP; Welsh Coastal Path and the Pennine Way.
I divided the distance of these Ways into the figures quoted for the total money they put into their local economies. Look for them and see if you come up with similar figures, I found. The survey for the Pennine Way was done in 1990 and shows a figure of £8000/ mile, if my maths is right.
All have a common denominator of 'Continuity of Way' over a distance;
Is there a value for continuity of way and is it related to the other factors and properties these routes have in common?
Quality of Way.
Connectivity of Destinations.
Interpretation of Geography.
Three headings which come to mind if you are going to start to measure marketability. None of these factors are even remotely suggested in the CLA's shallow policy on access named 'a common sense approach'. Sadly the Rambler's do not seem to challenge the occupiers of our countryside on an intellectual level, which might inform us users how poorly we have been served by the interpretation of the 1949 Act and it's subsequent development.


I hope to continue to look for and at actual examples and see what can be learnt from them.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 18:10:13, 28/03/17
This is the bridge highlighted in the yellow circle in the previous map, it is 1 1/3 miles upstream from a busy roadbridge on the B5062, this links High Ercall with Shrewsbury. Surely 100 or more years ago people walking would use the road, not then carrying the weight of traffic of today.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/footbridge_2567_zpsl1sw74yo.jpg) (http://)
So why was a bridge built here, another road bridge crosses the River Roden a mile upstream. Clearly from the network of footpaths recorded as rights of way both bridges were used as part of cross country pedestrian ways yet a bridge has been here since the 1880's. The continuous way highlighted on the 1900 OS map, shows the bridge could have made possible foot travel from beyond Walton all the way to the ferry at Uffington, a focus of travel that leads to the old centre of commerce in Shrewsbury. Before the industrial expansion of the town in the east, the livestock market had been in Raven's Meadow, the site of the Shrewsbury Livestock Auction till the early 1960's. Cattle and sheep could not be transported across the river and the road to Castle Foregate is the likely route. Imagine the groups of cattle and sheep travelling along the roads on market day, taking up the full width of the highway and their continuous passage cutting up the verges turning them to mud. Would the cross country pathways, offering a parallel route, be more acceptable to women, wearing long skirts and carrying baskets of marketable products such as eggs and cheeses? This phenomenon of an alternative line of parallel foot travel to the line of highway, which has become today's road network, reoccurs all around Shrewsbury. Do other market towns show similar networks?
So the line of missing path, between Poynton and Haughton, shown on the 1900 edition of the OS map gives more credibility to the existence of the bridge, which is also shown on the 1880 survey.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/poynton-Fbridge_map1880_zpsjmi289ct.jpg) (http://)


The anomaly here is; Why was a mile of footpath left off the definitive map, which seems to be the main reason for having a bridge. Footpaths from both High Ercall and Walton feed into the line of travel, which shows a continuity of way to a historical crossing point of the River Severn at Uffington the location of a ford and a ferry. The extended line of travel to the historic centre of Shrewsbury has enroute, the site of the Haughmond Abbey and Shrewsbury Abbey. Nowadays the ferry does not exist, so what is the point resurrecting an apparent medieval line of travel in the 21st century. Apart from the suggestion that it should have been included on the Definitive Map, this way links directly into a 'modern day greenway' right into the greenspace in the centre of the town, the Quarry, by the course of the 19th century canal and the river bank path.
Continuity of way can be found on old maps, but today's highway often interrupts these old lines of travel, but where they provide continuous lines of travel through countryside they have both social and economic value. This is dismissed by the CLA in their suggested policy for access, which I think is discredited by examples such as this, because it seems to show a lack of study. Reading the only article, I could find, on lostways on the Open Space Society's website much stress is put on proving a way has been walked in the last twenty years and these ways are probably tracks. This example is purely field margins and has been fenced off for so many years that reinstatement is highly unlikely without the good will of the landowners/occupiers. This unlikely as long as one of their main lobby groups still has it's thinking entrenched in the 18th century. The CLA likes to say that this country has the best countryside access network in the world but they cannot admit to the ideas that might make it better.
Shropshire County Council Leisure services seem to have tried to show some of the Shropshire Way as Linear routes, the trouble is the format of the Shropshire Way is a circular route, which conflicts with one of the basic geographical properties of the county. Shropshire was historically the largest inland county (pre Telford), as a Shire county, it's county town is near dead centre with the main river passing through it and the county occupies space between the Welsh Border and the Industrial Midlands. Does this Geography and more add up to a need to recognise, as part of a modern network, cross county linear routes? Would this be in the interest of harnessing the growing part leisure walking has to play in tourism?


Is this an example, where the admission by landowners of the 'Corruption of the Definitive Map', could broaden their understanding of the social and economic advantages of access?


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/shr-Nport_Rmap-b_zpsnhcoptx3.png) (http://)


The purple highlight is a tracing I have done over a near continuous line of footpaths, possible more continuous than parts of the Shropshire Way, on 1;50k scale OS maps. The northerly curve to the east shows a line around a low lying peat area, now mostly drained. There is then a beautiful stretch passing through a series of riverside meadows, in a shallow valley carved out by the River Meese.
The first break in the continuity of way from the east is the site of the WW2 airfield, which has suffered loss of access by reinstatement not being done after military use ceased. Historically some of this was apparent short cuts to roads, which are now are unsuitable for foot traffic but to have provided the ways to avoid this would have been minimal had the old paths been reinstated.


I think there are 3 holdings, over which this old way goes, did the occupant of one of these influence the decision to not include this way as a RoW. No great shooting estate owned property here. I think CWS farms may have owned the centre block of this land and milk production would then have been the main agricultural production, herds have gone from all the surrounding holdings. Should the local authority be held to account and explain why it was not included as a Right of Way or should it be left to a member of the public to troll through countless historical documents, in the hope that somewhere, someone recorded the minutes of a meeting. Would this show that self interest of the then occupier was the cause or would it show how inefficiently the intentions of the 1949 were carried out? In this instance none of the whinging reasons, which the CLA claims affecting the landowners by current access and the threat of re-establishing a historical route could apply. In fact it could bring business, should some of the large old farm houses choose to diversify with B&B.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:35:55, 11/04/17
A couples of days ago I walked across the WW2 airfield X zone shown by the east break in the potential route shown on the previous map. Also shown as a grey stain fourth map back on this topic. I don't think I could have caused any commercial occupier of that land any inconvenience and as I was unchallenged, no sense of invasion of property rights seemed to have been challenged.
I have made some more comments on my trip here;
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=22739.msg494517#msg494517


Yesterday I had a little jaunt around an area that was discussed earlier in this topic. It started by another forum member drawing my attention to issues in Herefordshire and ended up here;
http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=30054.msg472619#msg472619
Which I have described in a post today in Where are folks walking this weekend? (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=22739.msg494568#msg494568). It is about a mile of good footpath, which unfortunately leads to a very busy road with nowhere else to go. The result if this little exploration is a way that puts this footpath to good use and safely. A mile of right of way is worth putting to better use even if comes under the description of a 'shortcut of yesteryear' in landowner parlance. In the X zone, Poynton - Haughton (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=30054.msg491297#msg491297), Shropshire there is a shortcut, really!, across the corner of a field that just leads to a similar road, though it is a B road, but can be equally vicious with traffic needing to be dodged.
It is highlighted here in the pink oval;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/bridge-poynton%20green_zpst1vociw4.png) (http://)
Does it serve any purpose, the purpose it did serve, I think is to lessen the distance the folk from Walton and surrounds had to walk to cross the river Roden at Poynton Green bridge, which seems to have been a crossing that was used by quite a lot of footfall, because the other line of approach is the footpath now used by the Shropshire Way and this reaches back well over a mile into a well populated area with lots of footpaths which may well be described as shortcuts. I would look on them as tributaries to this way that seems to become stronger as it crosses the bridge. If we believe this scenario, where did all those people go? To work? All the farms west of the river were relatively small. To the Pub, well there was a pub at Poynton Grange many years ago, called the New Invention, but to be logical this pub is more likely to have been there because of the footfall and other passers by, rather than to have been the destination for the footfall as there were hostelries closer to the the source of the pedestrian traffic.


Perhaps they all used the road, but the old OS maps give us a clue. Where the red arrow is they show footpaths, this gives a parallel route to the lane going west, so a little more time is needed to highlight some more of those old ways on the 1900 OS edition, which so exhausted the compilers of the Definitive Map and left them without the strength to fill them in. Or perhaps it was poor diet after food rationing in the 1950's. HAH! just thought there were rationing footpaths as well :2funny: :2funny:


So the way I read the map, is this seemingly useless bit of right of way tells a story of how much flow of pedestrian traffic there was, that today's highway was in part the way pedestrians went but the overall pedestrian way may well have been much longer than the CLA's assertions that all were shortcuts of yesteryear. When I first started to read their policy on access I was sure that it is intellectually flawed. The underlying weakness is drawing conclusions from popular assumptions without detailed study.

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:06:13, 27/04/17

The importance of Design can be found in almost every facet of day to day life. Is design relative to our access network? Design needs to be a planned and structured study to achieve an end result, but design is also found in random forms, unravelling design in history may solve riddles because when the pattern is found then the forces behind can be better understood and in nature the appearance of incomprehensible patterns often give comprehension, when underlying factors are recognized.
To the map purist marking a map is 'criminal', especially if that map is a public record and I expect that in the later part of the the 20th century this was the most likely way that anyone could have looked at pre-war OS maps.
 The Library of Scotland has made available 'online' a great many historical maps and the 1900 edition of OS 6 inch per mile is a particular snap shot of more than the position of stuff, it also shows where people were walking when to walk was the main form of travel*, if the trails left by our forbears were just shortcuts* from that time the residual pattern would be likely to confirm this. (http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/shrops_XXIX_1900_Hlight_red_zpsqs7j4p9j.png) (http://)
I have highlighted most of the off road ways, which see to have some degree of connectivity in green. A few yellow highlights are those that would seem to be domestic paths and local shortcuts. The red highlights are roads some lanes others trunk roads, but only those part of the roads that seem to give common cause to the direction of the footpaths.

The length of footpath near a mile long left out of our network today has intrigued me, halfway along it's lenght there appears to have been a dwelling without any track for access, but the dwelling is offset from the line of travel and a short length of path is shown joining the main way, all of which is trodden way. This anomaly is marked (1)  on the map made up from 4 sheets of the 1900 edition OS joined together, a luxury afforded by today's technology and software, which allows the highlighting in virtual reality of these old maps. Since the passing of the 2000 CRoW act the assumption that there is little need to study the very maps that show the pattern or random design of the network on which much of our definitive Map is based on, seems endemic in all who should have an interest in the DM. Is there more to the off road network of ways as shown by the OS mapping started in the 19th century as a secret defense weapon, to counter a possible invasion by Napoleon Bonaparte? 
I have had a certain leaning to the shortcuts theory, shortcuts to church, local village from outlying hamlets/farms, even the ways to work*. The introduction of canals and railways have obviously created additional shortcuts, they also highlight those ways that went before by showing the points old ways were recognized by providing means of crossing.
Those of us, who design our own walks will see a possible route by the ways being highlighted by the green of type of right of way on the 1:25k OS, this often is a combination of tracks and footpaths. If we want to do a circular walk the OS maps give an instant point of focus, the part of the design of the map with green access. The added features and interim destinations that the green access will allow makes up the quality of the route. This is the difference between walking for leisure and having to walk to a destination out of necessity*. By highlighting the predominantly walking ways on the 1900 2nd edition map in green and sections of highway in red and sort of design does appear, which contradicts the notion of shortcuts.
Some of the pedestrian ways of footpaths seems to use the roads for connection to maintain their independent direction. This appears as a continuity of way, which is independent of the road network and over considerable distance. It does not show as mere short cutting to the directions of travel offered by those roads, which have developed into today's highways.
What could this value of additional continuity of way be? Other than to bring access to parts of the countryside not today accessible, the diagonal of the 4 joined sections of map is approximately 7 miles, should we be walking with destination and purpose in mind as our forbears did, in fact be walking linear routes. Perhaps some of us have already been looking for this in our access network.


When I spoke to the owner of the farm at Moortown he told me there used to be a footpath (2) across the fields to the station, Crudgington, an old shortcut, he did not take into account the continuation of this shortcut back to Rowton, Ellerdine, Osbaston and Walton, but these would have been erazed before his living memory by the airfield.


I nearly ignored highlighting the drive to Shirlowe (3) as a greenway until looking at the footpath disappearing off the bottom edge and realised the map below shows a very strong line north to south, though this route is include in the DM.
Why did some paths follow a parallel course to roads and why did the pedestrian traffic not share the roads then? I have previously mentioned my suspicion that foot travel and livestock being driven to market did not mix well and will not repeat those ideas, but being cognisant of the landowners argument that today's walking is for leisure only and the danger presented to the unprotected person on the edge of busy highways it must put some value on the design shown here. The leisure industry is a fast growing factor in the national economy not to be written off lightly*.


More playing with this map could reveal more explanation but it has become a rather top heavy file for my graphics programme and is proving slow to add to the tracings. It has provided me with enough evidence to think that the current thinking on lostways is sadly very shallow from all quarters.


*Line of reasoning in Harry Cotterrel's articles. (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=30054.msg470233#msg470233)
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 08:34:52, 13/05/17
Finding parallel ways gives new a insight into looking at routes. Before looking at some examples that actualy put me onto them, look back at this lostway;
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/haughton2poynton%20path_1900_red_zps9nhnby3p.png)[/URL ]  
it is a section of a download I was able to get from the Library of Scotland website and the scale is 6 inches per mile. These are the largest scale maps most people will get a chance to look at, but the OS printed 25 inch per mile scale maps.
Going back to this mile of lostway, I did mention before that the ground it covers crosses three farms. A few days ago visited one of the farmers and as soon as mentioned the dreaded words of "Rights of Way", he took me into his office for a look at the 25 inch maps, which probably date back to the 1950's. I can remember going into a long defunct printers and stationers in Shrewsbury, called Adnitt and Naunton, to buy sheets of these maps to draw up and record land drain schemes.
Although this farmer is a fair minded and intelligent man, he could not seem to grasp the perspective of my interest, part of this may be due to looking at scales of maps of this detail and not seeing the wider picture. All he wanted to tell me about was a local shortcut, which had been erased from the Definitive map many years ago and the trouble the short piece of current right of way causes his farming activities. To see the pattern, as illustrated in the previous post, 4 OS sheets were joined together, might just show how that little bit of nuisance path once fitted into a much broader picture.
This reminded me of a passage a read in Harry Cotterrels articles stated that landowners are the best people to judge where the public should walk in the countryside, he no doubt has many sheets of 25 in/mile scale OS maps, which show exactly where these old footpaths were on the ground in 2000 acres of Herefordshire. He or one of his close colleagues must have sat in the joint study groups on lostways and have never let on how may pieces of the old network is known to landowners.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/OS.1-25k_red_zpsl9hwbhjb.jpg) (http://)
The above map has the old route in purple, this route would have to cross the stream coming Poynton Springs, but there is a track crossing this water course. This can be seen clearly on Google Earth. This stream is probably is the boundary between two of the holdings, so it seems that little would need to be done to allow passage between Poynton to Haughton and transform a short length of local, little used right of way into an important cross country linear way.



 (http://)
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: DevonDave on 12:55:22, 13/05/17
I never knew that the OS used to produce maps to a scale of 25 inches to a mile.  That is a massive scale that must have allowed a tremendous amount of detail.  I used to work in the house-building industry and it was part of my job to carry out site surveys to be used in the planning process.  Like you I remember going along to our local OS agent and purchasing maps, but these were the 6 inches to a mile scale. 
I wonder if anyone remembers the old 2.5 inch to a mile maps that were the forerunner of today's 1:25,000 scale maps.  They covered a much smaller area than today's maps.  I still have the ones covering Dartmoor, and it was necessary to have about eight maps covering the National Park, an area that is now covered on just one map.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:18:11, 14/05/17
I cannot remember the actual scale, nearly 50 years since I handled one. I only quote the farmer as it has bought back memories I have found hard to have corroborated by other sources. The detail was great, every field had its acreage printed in the middle to 2 or 3 decimal points. A 20 -30 acre field could be measured with a six inch rule, though I cannot remember now what scale I used. It was accurate enough to be able to work out single passes of a corn drill and use a slide rule to check the application rates of seed drills.
It was some years ago that I posted on a topic, that it is a shame the OS do not print the locations of gates and field access points on explorer maps. I have been using Google Earth for a number of years now to identify these access points. A small cross might be useful sign to let one know where to get through a field boundary. This I was told would be too difficult for the OS, I did not pursue it at the time, but I knew these details were on these old scale maps. It is the reason why I look closely into overgrown hedges to see if their is an old gate or stile hidden, when a path has been obliterated, surprising what detail there still is littered around the countryside.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:17:05, 31/05/17
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/OS.1-25k_red_zpsl9hwbhjb.jpg) (http://)


Last week I walked nearly the whole way between Haughton and Poynton. Not along the route of the old lostway, this was covered with crops but the grey dotted line is a very walkable farm track, running parallel to Poynton Springs and when I came to the end of this I turned right then left along a field margin until I came to a boundary hedge. I believe I walked this way through two holdings and reached the boundary of a third. This would have given me only one field to cross to reach the lane, that would join to the right of way leading to the bridge. Had the Ministry of Defence done their job properly when finished with the airfield at High Ercall this would be the only lost way to recover to create a 20 mile near continuous walk of pure countryside directly across Shropshire from East to West.
Given that a similar route is blocked between Wellington and Shrewsbury by a similar situation, it throws into light the propaganda of the CLA that has persuaded farmers and landowners that they should defend their property from the risk of creating Rights of Way.
As far as I can tell it would need 4 farmers to see the value of a continuous way over their farms to create this long distance way across Shropshire. I call them farmers because the are all working farmers, who have bought there land within 2 generations. Three of the farms are owned by families related to each other. Had the pressure groups behind the agricultural industry put more effort into trying to understand how the access network can benefit the rural economy, I could see this particular example of a lost way healing itself without the need for outside intervention.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 09:53:49, 22/06/17


Given that a similar route is blocked between Wellington and Shrewsbury by a similar situation, it throws into light the propaganda of the CLA that has persuaded farmers and landowners that they should defend their property from the risk of creating Rights of Way.
There is a 1150 acre area immediately west of the town of Wellington, Shropshire, which blocks access to the countryside very noticably from the transport hubs of this town. It would appear that a large proportion of the land without access is in the ownership of one person.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/orleton%20Xzone_1.50kOSmap_red_zpsjtx3gelk.png) (http://)


Is this the way for a leading landowner to set an example? Has he used one of the common anomalies that beset the Definitive Map to his own advantage quite legaly, as the law on access is, but is it a good moral position? And does it add to the suspicion that a national lobby group produced a national policy on access without fully researching facts and evidence that was within the knowledge of their own membership.
(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/CLA_1pholt_orleton_red_zps57gqdehl.png) (http://)


I came across this anomaly about 4 years ago, a member of this forum was doing a cross England walk, a Coast 2 Coast from The Wash to the Welsh coast Barmouth or Harlech. He asked my advice as I had done a couple of X Wales routes starting from Shrewsbury and this was where his next stage of his route was. On reflecting his walk so far from the East, I wondered how he had made the Wellington to Shrewsbury connection. There are some good lengths of cross country footpaths, but they are not linked, though older maps seem to show a common purpose for these routes.  Sections left off the Definitive Map that is shown up by that 'Snapshot in Time' created by the Ordnance Survey from the mid 1800's to the 1940's seem to tell a more complete story of how country people traveled on foot to these towns.
The anomaly at the Wellington end of the route is a right of way that ends at a white lane. As the white lane is the back drive to a large house, the anomaly is the lack of continuity of the way. The landowner, who I met recently states that the RoW was a path for servants to reach the hall from the town, but was a right of way necessary over his own land and this contrary to the intention of the 1949 act, which was to create access to the countryside for all.
Is this reason a convenient excuse to justify the lack of the right of access along the back drive? But was the drive the real part of the route. The back drive leads to a village, Wrockwardine, a place where there was a population with a need to access the commercial heart of Wellington as much as the servants from Orleton Hall.


(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/25in%20wrock-orl_highlight_red_zpsxtxj5dta.png) (http://)
Section of OS map 25 inches/mile taken from National Library of Scotland


 The older maps show a more direct route from Wrockwardine (highlighted in red), which would seem to indicate that the section of right of way is in fact the final part of a much longer route.
Today the town center is the location of the railway and bus station key services in economic structure of access, yet the landowner in the center of an area short on access has no responsibility to evaluate his position and the effect his convenience has on the surrounding community. A closer look at the old maps shows that the landowners of the 1800's took their duty in this regard more seriously as a way appears to be carefully crafted to avoid private areas of the house (servants and all) and links the way through in a straight line to the village. Was this way older than the house? The 1880 OS maps gives us a very detailed snapshot of time into our history,  but this way continued through to the 1900 edition, would the later editions show that they the use of this way continued up to the 1940's and immediately prior to the formation of the Definitive Map? Perhaps only the landowner has the maps that would corroborate this and would that information be forthcoming.
The reason why this first step out of the town of Wellington could be of benefit is a potential cross country route all the way to Shrewsbury avoiding the major highways developments that have become the traffic links between the two towns, using long lengths of footpaths, which have made it onto the Definitive Map of Shropshire. What this example highlights is that there is a zero requirement on the occupiers of our countryside to be aware of how their occupation affects the surrounding community and raises the question; Is their husbandry of our countryside as fair and tolerant as the example shown by the history shown on this map.


During my conversation with this landowner, he told me that he was a member of the Telford Local Access Forum and this footpath was no interest to the Shropshire Access Forum. It seems to me that a lack of knowledge of the importance of long distance routes to the tourism economy is a serious deficiency in a member of so responsible a civic body, it is this total lack of understanding of continuity of way that stands out in the CLA's policy document on access.
Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:55:46, 06/07/17
The commercial occupiers of our countryside make a great distinction that the need for access has changed to leisure activities from a more important requirement of travel, when walking was the main mode of transport for the many. How much of this attitude has been fostered by the organization, who likes to call 'freeholders' of land as landowners, to the disadvantage of property owners fully benefiting in the growth of the leisure industry.
The pedestrian traveler, who originally marked out those routes in our countryside, which were captured by the OS surveys pre-1949, needed to go into towns, whereas the main purpose of the leisure walker today is the reverse. Does this make those routes of yesteryear obsolete?
Harry Cotterell as Vice President of the CLA wrote;
“Our members know their own rights of way better than anyone else, they know which ones work and which ones do not.”
But the owner of Orleton has interpreted the reason for the footpath that appears join his house to the town of Wellington in a way that suits his wish to deny access rather than to allow it. This would fall into the category of some footpaths also mentioned by Harry Cotterell in the same article;
“We would have to go out of way to show how many pointless paths there are around the country and, perhaps, to demonstrate sensible alternatives which provide more and better access for everybody.”

If we look at the potential of the overall route, it would seem to offer more.


One reason why, I think, the old network is important is that it provides a framework that could, if allowed to evolve, be fashioned into an asset serving the leisure industry to the advantage of many more than the individual freeholders of large areas of agricultural land. It would be a shame that those producers, who have worked hard to pay for their acres, should have to be reminded that their customers have a choice, where to buy the produce they provide. Should it be jeopardized by a 'landowner', who according to articles on the internet, inherited this estate from a father, who was given the house and 2000 acres by the Earl of Powys because he had married his favourite niece?


Since I have been posting on this forum I have read many posts about members wishing to or actually walking across Shropshire, if the county were truly hospitable you would think that this could be achieved by walking through some of the best countryside and have routes, which avoid those roads that carry the most of the counties traffic. If this is not so then surely it should be an aim for those looking to develop the counties access network.


Nearly all, who have posted here seem to be drawn to the part of the Severn Way between Telford and Shrewsbury, to cross this part of the county, resulting in a 4.5 mile road walk. It would appear that 100 years ago people walked into Wellington (now part of Telford) from 5-7 miles away and also did similarly walking to Shrewsbury. The route that appears to enter Wellington through the Orleton Estate actually seems to source from an area that also gathers tributaries, which focus on one of the historic ferries over the river Severn, to access Shrewsbury. Now a new road has been the reason for new bridges, are these reasons for the access network to bend and conform to changing times?


There is also a new feature, which falls into the path of a direct route between the two towns. Part of a quarry near Overley was used for landfill, this has resulted with a new high point. One of the finest features of the new A5 is the spectacular scene of the plain of the River Severn against the backdrop of the distance hills, a panorama stretching from the South Shropshire Hills and Welsh Mountains all the way to the Clywyddians, as a car driver breasts the bank by Overley, should not this view be thought a valuable asset to be part of the improvements to the experience of walking through this county. Not very likely as the owner of the Orleton Estate thinks many people coming from the town onto his land are a potential danger to children on his estate and as this man is the President of the Shropshire branch of the CLA there would seem to be little hope for Harry Cotterell's suggestions to bear fruit, not that those thoughts showed at all in the official CLA policy on access, published during his Presidency.


Whilst our local authorities furnish and protect little used rights of way, which the CLA pressures for their termination, it may be in the knowledge of the CLA's members(with their 25in per mile OS maps)  how to bring back those little used footpaths into a full and useful participation of the leisure industries contribution to the rural economy.
 
But then the 'Corruption of the Definitive Map' has always been a subject of denial and especially by the heirs of the main perpetrators.

(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u297/barewirewalker/highlighted_map_2_zpsg236vld4.gif) (http://)


In the above map the length of Severn Way on hard road is highlighted in red, the Orleton lostway is highlighted in purple and lengths of cross country footpaths highlighted in green, which sadly appear to have little use relative to their charm, nearly equal the length of roadway walked on the Severn Way. Is this one landowner contributing to a waste of public money used to furnish and protect these Rights of Way?
Bus and Rail stations are also highlighted, just one of the ways our leisure activities link into the commercial heart of the countries economy. 

Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:19:50, 07/07/17
Sadly all the images have gone, Photo Bucket emailed me this morning to say I appeared to be using 3rd party hosting, which is part of the service I thought I had signed up for, and tell me I now have to pay £310 to continue. This is too much to pay, so I suppose I will have to watch their little dial to click down, which is no doubt their little bit of extra pressure to try to make me cough up. May be some companies who have been using other peoples images for commercial purposes may do this, but I have been following up some interesting research first triggered off by being verbally abused by a landowner, who looked very much like a farmer in outward appearance, but judging by his splenetic outburst his brain was infected with ideas from the 18th and 19th century.


Fortunately I copied the entire pages up to yesterday, I have been logging the hits on this topic and they seemed unusually high, is bott activity or interest from silent readers. Some PM's I have received suggests a few with a serious interest in out access network have been following on a regular basis. If anyone has need of the illustrated version of this topic please contact me with a PM, in the meantime I will have to try to find another hosting site, which allows third party hosting and does not wipe out the links after a period of time.



Title: Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:48:06, 20/09/17
The explicit examples that this topic has collected over it's term have lost their impact with the loss of graphics thanks to the antics of Pbucket. One of the reasons I started it was linked to a question I raised on another forum, now defunct; that forum was hosted by the publishers of Country Walking Magazine and Trail.


The question I asked was "Are Lostways Important?", I was told by one of the few on that site that they were not worth the effort!! This and the fact that the editorial interest on that site being practically zero on this issue, though not surprising to me, was a disappointment.


One of the titbits of info I picked up along the way, is the estimation of English Nature or was it Natural England that 10% of our footpath network was not put on the Definitive Map.


This may stir the interest of some, but the examples I have unearthed from my contributions to this topic and some further ones that I may have posted, had Pbucket not interrupted my flow, show an interesting bit of fact that should be developed and that is the;


Importance of Continuity of Way.

Say a footpath goes from A to B and another goes from C to D. If there is a lostway that is B to C, the distance of AD, is far greater and probably more effective.
This was not studied in Natural England's pilot projects on Lostways, yet most of the examples of lostways I have found have this as a common denominator.


So how much contribution could lostways make to our access network?

The Area around Garnons, the home of the landowner, who was president of the Country Landowner's Association when they published their current policy on access, is a vast area of Herefordshire of several civil parish councils without rights of way. It lies across the sightline from the Malvern Hills to the Black Mountains, which the River Wye flows across. This area of no RoW's, many thousand of acres of our countryside, that is an exclusion zone, blocks any non highway approach to the only non urban bridge over that river in 20 miles.


Do Lostways connect valuable infrastructure?

The lostway that could produce continuity of way through the Orleton Estate west of Wellington, Shropshire thus joining the important transport hubs of these two towns, is occupied by an office holder of the Country Landowner's Association, who is a member of Telford Local Access Forum, a body set up to advise the council on matters related to access.


Does the loss of continuity of way lessen the economic value of the access network, figures published on the revenue that goes into local rural economies suggest that recognized ways can earn £1000s per mile per annum, perhaps £10,000s even £100,000s, multiplied by the length of the way.



Are there stories tied up in these lost way that could make good journalism, that could interest the readers of magazines targeted at people who want to get out into our countryside? Other that targeting those, who want a new anorak to watch Bear Grylls or Julia Bradbury on the TV.


On Monday, thanks to another forum (adalard) member I explored a fascinating feature (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=35277.msg504204#msg504204) that could really improve the quality of access in the area I walked.


Lostway were raised on the form fairly recently (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=34985.0), though I was disappointed that the OP seemed to think that it would only interest those with historical interest. Lost ways once led to places, is there a current interest on the way and the destination the way led too? That is the question.