Walking Forum

Main Boards => General Walking Discussion => Topic started by: happyhiker on 14:04:08, 24/06/20

Title: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: happyhiker on 14:04:08, 24/06/20
Often when walking across farmland, footpaths are poorly marked or not at all or they start off well marked then the markings stop, maybe at an ownership boundary. If you end up going where you shouldn't, one argument is that it's the landowners fault for not marking the path more clearly. The other is that it's the walker's fault for not map reading properly. Where do Forum members stand on this?
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: vghikers on 14:39:40, 24/06/20
In my understanding, the landowners have responsibility for maintaining a reasonable unhindered line of passage along the right of way.
If a footpath passes through a boundary like a fence, wall or hedge, a reasonable crossing must be present such as a stile or gate, but I don't think they have any obligation to sign them with waymarks or fingerposts.

In parts, even national trails might only be signed at the points where they depart from a road, cross a prominent boundary or at a multiway junction.
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: WhitstableDave on 14:56:31, 24/06/20
I always think of waymarkers as occasional and welcome confirmation that I'm on the right path; I certainly wouldn't rely on them to find my way.

As I understand it, waymarking is the responsibility of the local authority. Or perhaps I should say that when I've reported problems with missing waymarkers or waymarkers pointing the wrong way to the Kent County Council PRoW department, they've sometimes fixed the problem!

As for whose responsibility it is to cross farmland on the correct line, I'd say you should be doing your very best to go where you believe the path ought to be. Having said that, I always have my Satmap GPS with me when I'm in an area that's new to me, so it's always easy to stay on the correct line, even when no path can be seen.
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: barewirewalker on 18:01:13, 24/06/20
I think Vghikers has summed the responsibility for marking correctly. I remember chatting to a farmer in mid Wales a few years ago, it was fairly remote and as the way was not very well marked I asked if I was on the right track. He told me the council had sent him a pack of waymark discs a year or so previous and that they were probably still in the drawer in the kitchen, though the wife might have sent them to the church fete to sell as coasters. He was a friendly fellow and didn't seem to be too concerned where I walked.

Now in south Cheshire a few days ago, I found the stump of a fingerpost clearly chopped off by a disc hedge cutter, this was just one of a number of clues that suggest those, who do the contract work for landowners, think they are following the local attitude to public access by inflicting damage the infrastructure. On the other hand a few weeks ago walking within an estate that clearly do not value walkers and rather they were not there, the crop ways were meticulously left clear.This I think is a sign that the management of that land was mostly contracted out and the contractor does his homework properly, in planning his cropwork.

I think there is a lot to be learnt about how messages get through to the various interests that occupy, administer and work in the countryside. I have tried to ask if the difference between farmer and landowner is relevant to us users, a lot can be learnt about an area about how the occupiers respect those who visit their localities.
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: BuzyG on 18:26:56, 24/06/20
Locally to us the council look after signage on many of the RoW.  It may be that is because the signs to them or from public roads. 


I'ts been interesting over the years chatting to landowners repairing gates and styles.  I recall chatting to a young chap last summer, who was just finishing off a gate.  I commended his work, then mentioned the style at the other end of the field could do with his skills, to be told that one was maintained by the council.  I think it's still slowly falling apart.
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: GnP on 17:02:58, 26/06/20
Locally to us the council look after signage on many of the RoW.  It may be that is because the signs to them or from public roads. 


I'ts been interesting over the years chatting to landowners repairing gates and styles.  I recall chatting to a young chap last summer, who was just finishing off a gate.  I commended his work, then mentioned the style at the other end of the field could do with his skills, to be told that one was maintained by the council.  I think it's still slowly falling apart.
 

I have seen some repairs done that were a tad ad hock ( possibly by the landowners contractor or even local walking groups ) but still robust and very usable even at times , better than some stiles that have been repaired to a set standard by the council . I praise the councils standards of repair in Worcestershire and of late in Shropshire for there continuing great work though . It seems that metal gates are often the norm nowadays too . I love wood but hey ho , whatever lasts longer is best .

I cannot vouch for the state of repair to some stiles and bridges of late in the Cotswolds but a few years back I noticed they were pretty dire . The signs were often non existent , maybe because walkers were being taken for granted as there were so many , and the powers to be thought the directions were obvious .

Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: gunwharfman on 18:40:01, 26/06/20
France, in my view, has the best footpath marking, and again in my view, their system is far superior to ours.
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: ninthace on 19:17:31, 26/06/20
France, in my view, has the best footpath marking, and again in my view, their system is far superior to ours.
Try Germany or Austria - even better and supported by tourist board websites.
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: Leicslad on 21:14:00, 26/06/20
I really think landowners/farmers who don't clearly indicate the rights of way are shooting themselves in the foot. If they don't want people wandering all over the wrong bits of their land, the best thing they can do is make it easy to navigate the official footpath. I suspect they are of the beleif that if they allow the stiles and signage to fall into disrepair, then people might stop coming through frustration.
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: strawy on 22:04:38, 26/06/20
I really think landowners/farmers who don't clearly indicate the rights of way are shooting themselves in the foot. If they don't want people wandering all over the wrong bits of their land, the best thing they can do is make it easy to navigate the official footpath. I suspect they are of the beleif that if they allow the stiles and signage to fall into disrepair, then people might stop coming through frustration.
My thoughts too,especially around farmyards.
I hate walking through them,i always feel like i,m invading their privacy/workplace.
Had a chat with a farmer,pointed out a much easier way,he agreed and said he had suggested it to the local county council,they refused.
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: BuzyG on 22:35:54, 26/06/20
Try Germany or Austria - even better and supported by tourist board websites.
Try New Zealand.  ;)
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: Mel on 22:37:36, 26/06/20

...Had a chat with a farmer,pointed out a much easier way,he agreed and said he had suggested it to the local county council,they refused.

That's bonkers!  Why doesn't he just create a permissive path with signage saying "permissive path avoiding working yard/machinery/livestock"?  Most people will gladly follow any sign that says "avoiding livestock"  :D
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: strawy on 22:46:43, 26/06/20
That's bonkers!  Why doesn't he just create a permissive path with signage saying "permissive path avoiding working yard/machinery/livestock"?  Most people will gladly follow any sign that says "avoiding livestock"  :D
He did,and they told him to take it down because he hadnt got permission.
I,m only going on what he said,he seemed genuine  ;)
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: Mel on 22:51:43, 26/06/20

Maybe he secretly prefers the path to go through his yard so he can yap to all the people passing through ;D



Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: ninthace on 23:24:53, 26/06/20
Try New Zealand.  ;)
I have.  NZ is limited in a lot of areas.  There is no such thing as a public footpath as we would know it.  My Kiwi daughter-in-law was amazed when I took her on the SWCP, not because that existed but rather the abundance of PROWs leading to and from the main path running across private land.  In NZ, you walk where they say you can, there are a lot of great trails great mind but this thread is more about way marking.  Once you get off the major "tourist" trails in NZ, the way marking is not much better than UK.  Germany and Austria have loads more well way marked and signposted trails with times and distances and as I said, you can go on the appropriate website to see what is available, how it is graded and so on and then download it.
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: strawy on 23:31:41, 26/06/20
Maybe he secretly prefers the path to go through his yard so he can yap to all the people passing through ;D
You may be right,20 minutes later i went,however,i did learn about crop rotation in the 14th century  :D
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: GnP on 09:43:52, 27/06/20
A mate and myself have done a walk that goes across someones rear gardens . The last time we crossed there were some loose branches across the tops of both stiles .
A guy who I presume lived there , was tending to veggies at one side of the garden , looked up and asked if I wouldn`t mind placing the branches back after climbing the stiles as they were there to keep his geese from escaping .  :)
Title: Re: Responsibility For Footpath Marking
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:07:41, 27/06/20
The problem is waymarking falls into the trap of the rigidity of law and the flexibility needed to needed by common sense. This is compounded by the polar opposite interpretations of common sense as applied by occupier and visitor to the countryside.
That's bonkers!  Why doesn't he just create a permissive path with signage saying "permissive path avoiding working yard/machinery/livestock"?  Most people will gladly follow any sign that says "avoiding livestock"  :D
Unfortunately there is a large following among the 'rambler' fraternity of the pedantic 'I have a right to walk the right of way and must follow it precisely' school of thought.  This frame of mind is widely used by the landowner press to strengthen their case that the user groups lobby is unreasonable insisting they have rights to access to the countryside.


An article in the March edition of the British Farmer promotes a scheme for diverting ways around livestock with temporary ways, (a 50 year out of date admission that the 1940's rules have been bypassed by imported breeds). However this initiative has the added impediment that it should be made into law, the occupier groups will cite cost of insurance against third party claims, a rod self generated by the owners of land to drum up support from working farmers for their own lobby group and beaten regularly over many decades because they know that the farmers lobby group is built on a framework connected with insurance.

As the conflict between landownership and land user has evolved the visitor has been caught in this multi-jawed vice of conflicting myths,


Maybe he secretly prefers the path to go through his yard so he can yap to all the people passing through ;D

There are some occupiers, who consider themselves great sages, this is usually based on articles in the agric/owner press that is poorly supported by any proper research on the part visitors to the countryside actually play in the rural economy and how the access network ought to allowed to evolve.


The local authorities can only way mark according rules interpreted from the laws. How these get confused is a mixture of reasons based on attitudes and viewpoints caused by infighting on both sides of the occupier / visitor divide. The real weakness is the social immaturity of the landowner case; the motivation  they peddle is based on that of the spoilt child, who claims he owns the playground and the toys therein. Sadly signage become the victim, unlike Alpine regions, rural Britain contains many more destinations, a need to be flexible providing ways because of greater variables and the terrain does not govern the limit of potential routes.

As technology has developed to make new practice possible, the understanding of participants is still stuck in the quagmire of manorial rights and petty squiredom