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