[Closed] when is a footpath not a footpath?

Has owner diverted the right of way around his crop? I've always though this fairly reasonable since I prefer a well defined track over a trudge through ploughed earth or crops.

And I'd ride it too. [due to a generally militant attitude]

quite rightly owner has asked walkers to keep off his crops, quite wrongly he has ploughed up the footpath right to the hedge, but then complains that people wonder over the other side of the field because they can't see an established worn trail 🙄

....and there were stingers!

seems like a landowner trying to keep the trail open to moi.

why must dogs be kept leashed? it's crops not livestock...

He's got no right to do that, if the ROW is through the centre of his crop he's got to keep it open and that's the route you should take. Walk around the edge and you could be liable for trepass. It can only be diverted with and official diversion order.

while not exactly by the book, I see nothing wrong with that

when is a footpath not a footpath?(

when is a footpath not a footpath?

So following on, there is a very large wood by me and it has a BW with switchbacks and everthing on which is marked on the OS map.

But there is a trail that leads off the BW. I
The question is, if there is a trail that is not marked as a byway, bridleway or footpath, is it illegal to ride??

Who cares gonna do it tomorrow...............

stumpyjon's attitude is why ROW is such a mess.

all footpaths become fair game after dusk. fact!

[i]why must dogs be kept leashed[/i]

I believe it is the law when on any right-of-way through private land.

I'm with stumpyjon, if the landowner hasn't got a legally sanctioned diversion order he has to reinstate the path. Running a tractor along the line of the path is not reinstatement, it should be rolled to provide a firm footing.

obviously pragmaticism has no place on this forum...

I'm assuming this is in England? I seem to remember from my college days that some paths the farmer must not disturb but others he can plough and plant but you still have the right to walk it. This sign is an interesting one. He's may not actually be saying 'you can't go through the field' just that there's no visible path through it. Or he could just be encouraging walkers to go around the edge? If you want to know for sure you should contact the council who will have the 'difinitive map' which will show the paths and their classifications. Most councils have an Access Ranger who deals with this stuff.

Walk around the edge and you could be liable for trepass.

After being given written permission from (presumably) the landowner to do so? How would that work exactly?

Have you checked the map? has he actually diverted the footpath? or is he just pointing out where the path actually is after having lots of people shortcut across his field?

Just a thought.

stumpyjon's attitude is why ROW is such a mess.

Thanks for that fairly uninformed comment. The reason the ROWs are in such a mess is because much of the government in this country (local and national) don't see it as a priority. The reason behind my attitude is that in this case it all looks pretty reasonable from the limited information we have been given. However waht is reasonable starts to change once the rules are no longer strictly enforced. We already have enough issues with landowners thinking they, er, own the land and can do what they want. Today it's an unoffical diversion around a ploughed field, tomorrow it's some arse saying don't ride across my land, you can ride around the road instead.

Bernaard, what woods are those?

Have you ever been to mid wales stumpyjon? Look on the maps around the Claerwen Reservoir, near Rhayader it's criss crossed with bridleways and BW. Thing is they don't actually exist on the ground, they're just an indication of a "right of way" you can, in effect walk/ride any direction over the heathland. That is the way these things should work, here's a piece of land, you have a "right of passage" you can decide by what means at a later date, but by sticking rigidly to a form that says "It goes here on the map, therefore it HAS to go that way in real life" is just stupid. The photo above is perfectly acceptable, you still get to cross the field, working farmer gets a few more crops out of the field, every-ones happy. These things need to be flexible

[i]Thanks for that fairly uninformed comment[/i]

Not uninformed, just a looser interpretation...

Ploughing public rights of way is covered by the Rights of Way Act 1990, todays access link with pics is [url= http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=12920 ]here[/url].

The quick answer is landowners are meant to avoid ploughing up rights of way and if they cant it needs to be put back together within a couple of weeks. The landowner cant close the right of way on one line and open up a different one without going through a whole raft of legal stuff. There's nothing to stop them asking you to follow a different route. Its their land and since tresspass is an offence against the landowner and its the landowner who has given you permission to be there no offence has been commited. The actual right of way must still remain open.

nickc, as oldagedpredator has pointed out the law is very clear as regards the responsibilites of the land owner. They can't just ignore it. I understand and agree with you senitments, if we could all be adult and reasonable about things life would be better for everyone. Unfortunately we can't which is why we have laws. The problem with laws is they tend to be rather inflexible or incredibly complicated, neither of which is good but there you have it.

Assuming we're reading the sign above correctly the farmer is giving people permission to go around the edge (no problem) but prohibiting them from going across the field (not his choice if it's a ROW).

You also seem to be confusing ROWs and features in the landscape. Just because there is a physical path on the ground doesn't mean you can use it. I know what you mean about ROWs not existing on the ground, there are somea round here that are unrideable. Trouble is the law specifically excludes bikes when considering the state of a ROW. However there may be no path but there must be gates (for a BW) when you get to field boundaries etc.

Dog's have to be on leads cos if they're not they get in the way of cyclists riding the trail illegally after dusk! 😉

[i]He's got no right to do that, if the ROW is through the centre of his crop he's got to keep it open and that's the route you should take. Walk around the edge and you could be liable for trepass. It can only be diverted with and official diversion order. [/i]

And

[i]The problem with laws is they tend to be rather inflexible or incredibly complicated[/i]

You said it...

Dunno why I'm bothering really, it's not like I pay the slightest attention to Row legislation... 😉