I saw an article on the news this morning regards a new scheme to produce a new/different kind of map for walkers. The idea being is to try and show the best/safest "walking" routes linking Britain's main towns and they are looking for volunteers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54562137 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54562137)
An interesting idea which I am sure will benefit a lot of people and hopefully prevent us following some so called paths which are no longer there, over grown with shrubbery or take you across dangerous roads.
There is a link at the bottom of the article for those who are interested.
I’m keen on any thing that helps people get out there and enjoy our countryside, but, shouldn’t the focus be on making those problematic paths passable? I know there will be some that are too steep or too rocky for people, so it is good that walkers can be made aware of this, but a PROW that is too dense of vegetation or muddy? These pass should be made accessible and I would rather the councils clamp down on that so it’s much easier for everyone to walk on paths they are entitled to be on. Signage should be a lot clearer too.
[/size]How far is the average member of the public prepared to walk? Is there a worthwhile destination within that distance? How do they get back? Using public transport is not recommended at present so they will have to walk back which reduces the range by half until such time recreational use of PT is encouraged. Then we have the issue of ground conditions, crossing obstacles and livestock.
A walk to my local town would be at least a 25 mile round trip, probably more. I have no reason to go there except to shop. The best walks in my area are not village to village but circular walks, often not involving conurbations.
Here is one. The current enthusiasm for the project is a spin off from the restrictions on movement during the pandemic. Already I have noticed that as freedom of movement has increased, the enthusiasm for walking for the sake of walking among the public at large has decreased. There is a real possibility that money will end up being spent establishing and maintaining a network of paths, many of which will be little trafficked because they do not lead anywhere anyone wants to go and, in so doing, the public funds available to spend maintaining other more worthwhile routes such as the current network of LDPs, will be reduced.
I don't see a down side to this and I hope it gains traction.
Here is one. The current enthusiasm for the project is a spin off from the restrictions on movement during the pandemic. Already I have noticed that as freedom of movement has increased, the enthusiasm for walking for the sake of walking among the public at large has decreased. There is a real possibility that money will end up being spent establishing and maintaining a network of paths, many of which will be little trafficked because they do not lead anywhere anyone wants to go and, in so doing, the public funds available to spend maintaining other more worthwhile routes such as the current network of LDPs, will be reduced.
For me, it remains an interesting exercise, something anyone with a map could while away a few hours doing if they had the inclination.
You may be right but go on to the ViewRanger and the OS websites and have a look at the pattern and characteristics of the routes on there. Look in particular for routes that go from conurbation to conurbation using footpaths. There aren't many, this is probably because it is not a popular pattern of walking. There is already nothing stopping people doing what the Slow Maps people propose - anyone who can read a map can do it. What is new as far as i can see is formalising and publicising these routes in some way and that brings an expectation of delivery and maintenance.
Clearly you haven't read what the intention is. It is not too create a whole load of new "paths" but link up existing ones. Why do you say nobody wants to do them? You may not want to but others might.
It clearly isn't primarily aimed at those who already use OS maps etc to plot routes, but more at people who use routes already plotted out for them.
I really don't see a downside.
Surely the more people we can encourage to walk the better it will be for all of us?
You may be right but go on to the ViewRanger and the OS websites and have a look at the pattern and characteristics of the routes on there. Look in particular for routes that go from conurbation to conurbation using footpaths. There aren't many, this is probably because it is not a popular pattern of walking. There is already nothing stopping people doing what the Slow Maps people propose - anyone who can read a map can do it. What is new as far as i can see is formalising and publicising these routes in some way and that brings an expectation of delivery and maintenance.
It needs a start up and ongoing budget. Paths are a Local Authority matter and they have no cash. It is also a national idea which requires LAs to work together. Who is going to document and publish the routes? Where do their funds come from? etc etc
And the problem with that, is?
It needs a start up and ongoing budget. Paths are a Local Authority matter and they have no cash. It is also a national idea which requires LAs to work together. Who is going to document and publish the routes? Where do their funds come from? etc etc
I know it involves existing paths! But if that was just it, there would be no need to call for volunteers to walk and report on all the routes. There is more to it than you seem to realise.
So we don't do give it a try?
As I said earlier if you took the trouble to actually read up on it, you may have a better idea.
I've read the article, watched the report on BBC News and visited the website. Each to their own, but I'm not enthusiastic enough to get involved.
Regarding path maintenance: As I write, I'm in dispute with Kent County Council at Ombudsman level because of their failure to fulfil their obligations - I'm quite proactive in that regard. Should a system of 'Slow Paths' come into being, then I assume these would be given a higher-than-average priority - perhaps similar to that of 'Promoted Paths' - in the triage system that prioritises path maintenance. This could have the effect of allowing lower priority rights-of-way to become even more neglected in an already overworked and underfunded system.
The perceived need for Slow Maps (seems to me) to be based largely on the total uselessness of Google's provision for walking routes. I've just asked Google to show me the best walking route between Whitstable and Faversham, about 10 miles away. Google completely ignored the blindingly obvious (to anyone who glances at an OS map) 'diamond' Saxon Shore Way route along the coast between the two towns, instead recommending a dangerous inland route along roads with blind bends and no footpath.
While many towns and other urban areas can be easily linked by 'recommended' walking routes, others cannot. For example, walking the 7 miles or so safely between Herne Bay and Canterbury on existing PRoWs and avoiding busy roads requires a much lengthier and very convoluted route. This could be done of course, but waymarking the route would involve a significant cost.
Finally (and perhaps selfishly!), I'm not interested in getting other people out walking - I'll leave that to them. I walk solo or with my immediate family. I've noticed a significant increase in the number of walkers, runners and cyclists in recent times, many of whom require me to take avoiding action if I'm to stay a sensible distance from them, because they don't seem too bothered. I'd be happy to return to the good old days when I'd hardly see another soul when I'm out and about... ;)
I know it involves existing paths! But if that was just it, there would be no need to call for volunteers to walk and report on all the routes. There is more to it than you seem to realise.
The paths already exist but they have never been presented as a countrywide point to point network. This network has to be put together from the feedback from the volunteers, redrawn and adjusted as necessary depending on their reports. The paths then have to be assembled on a website so people can find and select routes. The routes themselves have to be described and doucumented as well as links to public transport so people can get back to their starting points, Downstream the paths have to be maintained (either directly or indirectly via interaction with the landowners). Paths are living things and can become impassable for a variety reasons so temporary closures and diversions will have to be published. And so on.
Would you clear to explain that, in a bit more detail? because clearly I don't realise what is involved.
No perhaps about it, that is a selfish stance to take. It is also doesn't help your current dispute. The more people walking in the countryside the more councils are likely to listen to walkers.
The argument goes; "Mr Whistable Dave, you want us to spend money maintaining a path that from what we can see, only you and a few others use?"
Alternatively it could go: "Mr Whistable Dave, you want us to spend money maintaining a path that from what we can see, is frequently used by many walkers"
Which one is more likely to get funding?
In the current climate legal obligations, are not as clear cut.
The paths already exist but they have never been presented as a countrywide point to point network. This network has to be put together from the feedback from the volunteers, redrawn and adjusted as necessary depending on their reports. The paths then have to be assembled on a website so people can find and select routes. The routes themselves have to be described and doucumented as well as links to public transport so people can get back to their starting points, Downstream the paths have to be maintained (either directly or indirectly via interaction with the landowners). Paths are living things and can become impassable for a variety reasons so temporary closures and diversions will have to be published. And so on.
In that case I apologise and I have missed something. Can please explain to me then what the estimated demand for Slow Maps is and how the things I have outlined are going to done? Who is going to do the work and how it will be paid for both in the short and long term?
Well as I already new that (I do have a basic intelligence that lets me understand, that there is not much point in undertaking this venture without routes being publish (and surprisingly I also understand what will need to be done, to get to that stage))
So I ask again, why is it more involved than you seem to think I and others are capable of understanding.
Councils are not restrained by the lack of people walking in the countryside. They're restrained by a lack of funding. To demonstrate my selflessness, I'll happily vote for a party that promises to increase Council Tax substantially in order to better fund path maintenance. Perhaps we should organise a petition?
The Council's legal obligations are clear cut regarding my current dispute. The case I referred to is here: Documenting the demise of another PRoW (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=40641.msg587551#msg587551). Kent County Council has a statutory duty to deal with my complaint (not just a reporting of a blocked path). The Local Government Ombudsman is involved and councils really don't like that. In this case, it's not about footfall, but about ensuring the council carries out its legal duty.
(Back to selfishness... I find it ironic that my reason for wishing there were fewer people using footpaths at the moment is because of the lack of consideration shown by so many 'new walkers' towards me and my desire to socially distance. In other words, my selfishness is a result of other people's selfishness!)
In that case I apologise and I have missed something. Can please explain to me then what the estimated demand for Slow Maps is and how the things I have outlined are going to done? Who is going to do the work and how it will be paid for both in the short and long term?
If it goes "bang" tomorrow what have we lost?
...
But you have to agree, that if more people had actually used the footpath you are in dispute over. It wouldn't have got in that state. So by default more people out walking can only be a good thing.
...
Are you suggesting that if more people had actually used the footpath in question, it wouldn't have had a barrier of barbed wire, wooden poles, angle iron and rubble forming an impenetrable barrier at its entrance?
In that case I apologise and I have missed something. Can please explain to me then what the estimated demand for Slow Maps is and how the things I have outlined are going to done? Who is going to do the work and how it will be paid for both in the short and long term?
Are you suggesting that if more people had actually used the footpath in question, it wouldn't have had a barrier of barbed wire, wooden poles, angle iron and rubble forming an impenetrable barrier at its entrance?
Is that so unlikely a notion?
If more people tend to use a particular path, then there are more people moving stuff to get through, more complaints to local council if blocked, etc.
Very unlikely in this case. An encampment of caravans and vans was set up on 'wasteland' adjacent to the footpath. The entrance to the footpath was barricaded at the same time with barbed wire, etc. nailed in place, and the fingerpost was destroyed. I assume the new residents didn't like the idea of a footpath bordering their settlement.
It might be that Kent County Council is lacking in comparison with other local authorities, I don't know. I've been very active dealing with the Kent PRoW department and I've had a fair degree of success. I've also had complaints ignored and I know that reported complaints can often take years to process. As I've said, councils do not have the funding or staffing to deal with existing issues, so unless we're prepared to do something about that first, schemes such as Slow Maps will have difficulty being established.
So who'll join me in calling for a substantial increase in Council Tax in order to improve the resources available to PRoW departments?
Anything that increases awareness should be a good thing.Not too far away Andies.
That said I have often found that there is no sensible "slow route" available in the existing ROW network. Should we therefore be looking for that logical route that maybe once existed but didn't find it's way onto the definitive map.
Where's BWW?
It is not just a tool to encourage us to walk more, it is a campaigning tool. Once a route is identified, there is something to defend and to improve. It is then more than just a new resource, it is a way of trying to change a debate.As the most encouraging statement of intent from the website.
Whitstable Dave, do you think any one on the 'encampment' was one of my relatives? :-[GWM, I've no idea why I might think that.
I vote for a massive hike in council tax for Kent :)And why not? I hope the good people of Kent are also happy to pay for improvements to our infrastructure.