[Closed] Right to Roam, open Access etc

One thing to note, is that while we've right-to-roam in Scotland there is no requirement on the landowner to ensure that any route is accessible, ie don't need gates that horses can get through, or stiles that walkers can get over etc.

This may help placate the landowners in England and Wales.

some sort of comprimes encompassing open hill/mountain/moor land. Access based on condition and suitability with consideration of other users, the more comlex but overall better solution.

you need to know who owns the land first and in England that isnt as easy as it sounds.

Plus most upland fells, moors etc are private for grouse so managed shite for the shooters to ponce about on.

The country is a managed playground not a single natural habitat anywhere.

The country is a managed playground not a single natural habitat anywhere.

We already have open access land / right to roam in England - you just can't cycle on it. It's great for walking, mind, so as long as that more fundamental consideration has been addressed, there's little chance of it being thrown open to bikes.

The footpath / bridleway structure, separating cycling and walking activities, is just too embedded in the English legal system now. A visionary Scot managed to equate the two things in Scottish case law a long time ago, the die was cast and it's equal access for both up there.

I quite liked the British Horse Society suggestion in their 'making way for horses' blue sky document:

[b]Proposal 5 Adopt a single status for footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways[/b]
[i]The quickest and easiest solution would be to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act to make
all paths recorded on the definitive map the one status, apart from byways open to all traffic and
unclassified roads. The terms ‘footpath’, ‘bridleway’ and ‘restricted byway’ would be replaced by
the term ‘public path’. The public would have the right to pass over all public paths on foot, on
horseback or leading or driving a horse, and on a bicycle. It would be up to the individual user to
decide whether a particular path was passable or not, and there would be many paths whose
accessibility would be limited by natural constraints.
Local authorities would have a duty to make all public paths usable by removing obstructions in
line with the Equality Act 2010, and this should be done within a specified ten-year period.
Use of public paths would be in accordance with a Public Path Code (see further Appendix 4).
To be all encompassing the term public path should include cycle routes.[/i]

However, the big issue is that there are thousands of miles of perfectly sustainable tracks on statutory and permissive access land that walkers, and in other places walkers and horses, already have access to - it would be easy to give a right to reasonable access to existing tracks and trails on access land, and make a huge difference.

ninfan - Member

Local authorities would have a duty to make all public paths usable by removing obstructions in line with the Equality Act 2010

does this mean they all need to be useable by wheelchairs and prams?
apart from this reservation, I like that idea. I've always thought just let us ride on paths and I'll happily carry my bike over a stile if I'm allowed to cycle that route.

One thing to note, is that while we've right-to-roam in Scotland there is no requirement on the landowner to ensure that any route is accessible, ie don't need gates that horses can get through, or stiles that walkers can get over etc.

This is maybe the biggest difference to the current way the FC and other landowners permit access. At the moment, if the FC open up an area for mountain biking then they are taking on some measure of liability and they have to maintain it.

If I grab my bike and take it up on a Scottish hill then the risk is mine and I might not find it in the same state it was last time.

There will be other concerns - right to roam isn't universally liked. It doesn't help that some people don't remember that the right to roam also comes with a responsibility not to be an eijit.

The FC seem to be growing ever more hostile toward MTB events
is this because of budget restrictions or is their something else afoot.....

[i]Local authorities would have a duty to make all public paths usable by removing obstructions in
line with the Equality Act 2010, and this should be done within a specified ten-year period.[/i]

and the budget for this? 😯

There are great areas that if opened up to bikes or horses that would require a lot of maintenance, the impact of people is enough.
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
Not suitable for horses, tough on bikes - should these be open to all? Who maintains it? What if the new path isn't as challenging as the old one?
Blanket yes/no is not a solution it's making it easy to decide and hard to maintain. Who pays for the upkeep as this lot would be a 4ft deep trench in places if managed wrong.

There are bridleways on land just like that though. you could argue that spreading out users decreases erosion...

No horses up there would **** it up completely, it's not suitable. You are highlighting the bigger problem, the current classification has nothing to do with use but only with history.

and when a dozy bunch go through and mash it all up who repairs it? Who stops the erosion or the further damage?

grumpysculler - Member

The FC seem to be growing ever more hostile toward MTB events
is this because of budget restrictions or is their something else afoot.....

Events are completely different and not covered by right to roam in Scotland, nor should they be IMHO.

But in Scotland with the land owners permission you can race down a path that would be a footpath in England. You can't do that in England even if you have rented the land.

But the Scottish path isn't legally designated as a footpath so the comparison is pointless.

The major threat to access at the moment are the austerity measures with councils funding being cut, either in real or effective figures, so that non-essential services get cut or put to one side. If a landowner decides to take advantage of this by neglecting to keep a path clear, or indeed deliberately blocking it, then it's unlikely to figure highly on a council's priorities.

Not that all landowners/farmers/tenants are so minded, there are many who have a live and let live attitude.

As someone noted earlier in the thread, the right to roam in Scotland doesn't give you the right to be an idiot.

@dave The land in the pictures is very susceptible to erosion and it takes very little use to kill off the vegetation.

There's a bridleway near us on land not dissimilar to that and it wouldn't be suitable for lots of use yet it leads on to a footpath that is on hard standing or flags and could cope with any number of bikes over it. Legally I can ride on the first and destroy it but not on the second even though I would leave hardly a mark. Completely arbitrary designation.

There's a section of the Pennine Bridleway up in the Dales that still hasn't been sorted out legally so although it gets regular use, at the moment it is still a permissive ROW rather than a legal one.

There are great areas that if opened up to bikes or horses that would require a lot of maintenance, the impact of people is enough.

And theres also a great many that could, non?

The objections to the Scottish approach are nicely dealt with by reference to what has actually happened in Scotland - the work shows such problems as they've had don't seem to be down to cycling. Some walkers may object to sharing more paths with cyclists but they have had exclusive rights to almost four-fifths of rights of way, along with the huge (and welcome) increase via CRoW.
Whatever happens, many footpaths will remain beyond cyclists' reach, simply because they are unrideable. But that's no reason for the law, rather than the terrain, to prevent access.

[i]@dave The land in the pictures is very susceptible to erosion and it takes very little use to kill off the vegetation.[/i]

Large parts of Scotland are the same but have open access...

One of the criticisms of the proposed Right to Roam legislation was that people could walk anywhere so would disturb ground nesting birds (i.e. grouse). Have you ever tried walking across a grouse moor through knee high heather? After about 50 metres you are looking for the nearest track!

I suspect turning all footpaths in to bridleways (or removing the distinction) will be much the same: one or two will try a line but it will be so horrible that they'll turn back and continue on a traditional BW. These days with forums such as this, what is rideable/pleasant will soon become known about.

whitestone - Member

But the Scottish path isn't legally designated as a footpath so the comparison is pointless.

You were comparing the current situation in an incorrect manner not what might be if the law in England was changed. Therefore your comparison remains pointless.

whitestone - Member

You were comparing the current situation in an incorrect manner not what might be if the law in England was changed. Therefore your comparison remains pointless.

Well, technically you're both wrong, because you can race on a footpath - its bridleways that you can't 😉

Ohh a topic close to my heart.

Open Access for ALL IMO. So that means bikes/horses can use footpaths as well as current access rights. No motor vehicles and I'm adding in there e-bikes (sorry) but restrictions incl (not exhaustive) where footpaths go through gardens/farms then rider(s) must get off and push/walk, no access to land with animals on it or restrictive crops or land given over for fallow.
Forests clearly should be open to all too.. and moors and such.

Think that would good for a start.

Hate the fact that we've allowed this to disintegrate into a "partition" based country where some folk think they own what was here long before they were. You can all counter that with King John and handing over land to farmers etc. happy with that but what should have been put in place way back then was access for all.

It's a stupid mind numbingly situation we're in.

^^ hear hear

[i]There are great areas that if opened up to bikes or horses that would require a lot of maintenance, the impact of people is enough.[/i]

[i]and when a dozy bunch go through and mash it all up who repairs it? Who stops the erosion or the further damage?[/i]

So you're using an example of existing erosion and path repair to argue for less access? You're saying no one should use that upland area as to do so causes erosion? Or is it okay to erode as long as you're on foot?

ninfan - Member
Well, technically you're both wrong, because you can race on a footpath - its bridleways that you can't

I think he's taking the p*ss at our little handbags at dawn 😀

http://imba.org.uk/public-rights-of-way/cycle-racing-on-bridleways/

If we have the right to roam and disturb ground nesting birds such as the grouse then that is a good thing as they are only reared to get shot.
Bikes are not a problem for ground nesting birds we have a negligible impact on them, dogs are the biggest problem.

mikewsmith

That looks like the Pennine Way on the Cheviot 'ridge', and boy is it hard on a bike...

@Dave Interesting - genuinely counter-intuitive.

A further search on the relevant schedule didn't give many hits but this one is, erm, peculiar - http://cycleracingnews.com/cycle-racing-on-bridleways-imba-uk/ It's either in some very odd legalese or has been written by someone using a thesaurus. (The two may not be dissimilar)As an example:

[i]This record gives a suitable answer for the cycle dashing problem, and cycle hustling elements have been completely joined in the proposition. They have been in this manner completely talked about in the period 1998/9 with Ministers Gus McDonald and Kate Huey,[/i]

Cheers for the email that will really help me out with a race venue I have.

Part of the challenge of our 'better' access laws in Scotland is the idiots who don't adhere to the 'responsible' bit. It manifests itself most commonly in places close to cities - see Lomond shores challenges etc, but also in more remote numptiness at times.

The challenge in England is the greater numbers (not proportion) of idiots. There is a corresponding greater number of the sites that would come under pressure, as the greater number of idiots are also closer to many of the sites than in Scotland.

I am not saying either situation is perfect - but I don't believe Scotland has put the resources it needs to into counteracting the idiots yet (we have the manifesto and laws needed IMO) and educating the next generation, and beyond.

See also the shit heap (at times literally) that is Glen Etive.

Having been waiting for this for nearly 18 months, I'm afraid I've been caught out unaware! It certainly doesn't look like it's changed much since the early internal consultations, which is good. I'm back in the office first thing Wednesday; I'll have a thorough read and report back here.

My initial thoughts are: -

[u]Good[/u]
More users across a larger path network = less erosion / conflict *
Simplifying RoW procedures

[u]Bad[/u]
I can tell you now I'm (as Access / PRoW officer for a Welsh council) not going to get any more money / staff to implement it (unless this will replace ROWIP's, which it *might*)
Not happy with the relatively short consultation period

One point re. ground nesting birds / endangered species, the CROW Act allows us to install (and if my late afternoon memory serves me correctly) signage with words to the effect of "ground nesting birds - please don't walk in the area behind these signs".

* One of my access land areas is directly next to a large MTB centre, and with the exception of the local gamekeeper complaining about them they're really not a problem

Dave - Moderator
There are great areas that if opened up to bikes or horses that would require a lot of maintenance, the impact of people is enough.

and when a dozy bunch go through and mash it all up who repairs it? Who stops the erosion or the further damage?

So you're using an example of existing erosion and path repair to argue for less access? You're saying no one should use that upland area as to do so causes erosion? Or is it okay to erode as long as you're on foot?

What I'm saying is to make an area like this sustainable for use by bike or horse will take a large amount of time and money, who pays? Simply saying the black and white options are not the best. Usage base and condition based assessment would be my preferred method of classification.

The examples are of somewhere that before that was done was a slog through a peat bog, modified to accommodate walkers gets the boards. How do you enable horses to go through it? Bikes the same.

Access in England is much more delicate due to the number of massive population centres that are close to some of the more delicate areas. In Scotland you can be 4-5hrs drive from a city and in near isolation, it's not that empty in England.

The examples are of somewhere that before that was done was a slog through a peat bog, modified to accommodate walkers gets the boards. How do you enable horses to go through it? Bikes the same.

If you have the right to roam surely that doesn't imply right to passable terrain? It would of course depend on what/how this was implemented, but it wouldn't need to be a problem. As has been mentioned the law in Scotland has the caveat of not being an idiot, causing damage etc, this should stop people/horse/bikes/etc damaging boggy/soft terrain if there's not an existing path

As has been mentioned the law in Scotland has the caveat of not being an idiot, causing damage etc, this should stop people/horse/bikes/etc damaging boggy/soft terrain if there's not an existing pat

Wondered when the Welsh gov was going to get on with this been on the cards for about 3 years or so.

TBH in England I just pretend we have open access already.

The examples are of somewhere that before that was done was a slog through a peat bog, modified to accommodate walkers gets the boards. How do you enable horses to go through it? Bikes the same.

By that logic you would have banned walkers instead of building boardwalks

Why does massive erosion by walkers (anyone remember what the top of kinder used to look like?) justify huge amounts of spending to repair and protect, but the mere risk of bikes causing it (even though, in fact, the evidence clearly points towards cyclists self-selecting the better, more sustainable tracks) result in sheer apoplexy that it could never work?

Amazingly enough, Scotland also has some major population centres, has there been a disaster on the urban fringe? Well, they've certianly had problems, but those they have had seem to stem from thieving and pissed up neds camping and lighting fires, rather than from mountain bikers and horseriders.

Unfortunatley, most of Mikewsmiths objections are exactly the same ones that we heard for years explaining why open access on foot could never work...

Amazingly enough, Scotland also has some major population centres, has there been a disaster on the urban fringe?

I commend you high opinion of people.

That, and the lazyness of people. The main problem we've had in Scotland is neds and other eejits camping near the roads of Loch Lomond rather than bikers and hikers creating new paths or causing undue erosion.

I suspect that if there's not a path somewhere most people will be too lazy to try and create one rather than follow the usual route.

[i]The examples are of somewhere that before that was done was a slog through a peat bog, modified to accommodate walkers gets the boards. How do you enable horses to go through it? Bikes the same.[/i]

So you're saying it was unsuitable for walkers but the idiots kept using it?

Yep they did, idiots be idiots.
Part of the Pennine way - so obviously it should be fine to walk on why wouldn't you?

And as for comparisons with Scotland the population and usage is a little different
[img] [/img]
Yes it's a Strava heatmap but it does give an indication as to the level of use currently.

@whatnobeer I saw some figures about Lake District visitors that claimed somewhere near 90% of them never went further than 50 metres from the road.

The heatmap doesn't give the whole story: by far the greatest volume of data is generated by road cycling - I don't know the proportion of mountain bikers who both carry a GPS and use Strava but I'd guess that it's a lot less than road cyclists so there's a bias in the data there. At the scale shown above it's really hard to discern any use away from major roads and centres of population but go to labs.strava.com/heatmap and zoom in to one of the upland areas and you'll see the contrast in usage. Here's Gisburn Forest http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#12/-2.33805/54.00297/blue/bike look in the top right corner and you see the bridleways around Malham which show hardly any use in comparison to the trails in the forest.

You could argue "build it and they will come" but there are instances of that in the Dales and the usage is still very low - the PBW was created for horse riders rather than cyclists but it's a facility that's there and it doesn't get much use by mountain bikers. On this heatmap http://labs.strava.com/heatmap/#13/-2.29873/54.24667/blue/bike in the centre of the map there's a section of the PBW that heads west from the Pennine Way. This was installed by the National Park a few years ago I doubt they'd have the cash these days.

This raises the biggest sticking point: it's not just willingness on the part of the various parties but who [b]pays[/b] for any improvements or changes. There was a thread on the fell running forums about the difficulty of keeping existing ROWs open and free of foliage due in part to financial restraints on local authorities.

The ROW in in England are a hotch-potch both on the ground and in law: even in a national park you struggle to link up bridleways and footpaths without using sections of the few roads in the areas. Even with the best will in the world creating such joined up routes will take a long time - look how long it's taken to put the Pennine Bridleway together.

mikewsmith - Member
Amazingly enough, Scotland also has some major population centres, has there been a disaster on the urban fringe?

They are not exactly that big, what I'm saying is blanket access isn't the best or only solution, sort out the issues around it, work with land owners and agree who is going to foot the bill (not land owners)

That's one good argument for a certain amount of devolution of government. This area ( eg S Wales) doesn't have the same issues as the SE of England, so it shoukdnt be covered by the same blanket legislation.

Me too Frosty!

Having lived in Scotland, I just ignore piffling English access wrangling. It's all open access as far as I'm concerned...!

So you want access decided on the actions of a few idiots rather than the majority? It's an interesting proposal. 🙄

Dave - Moderator

So you want access decided on the actions of a few idiots rather than the majority? It's an interesting proposal.

Lowest common denominator policies have been thick and fast for some time now.

@Schnor; the Welsh consultation document makes interesting reading; primarily it seems to focus on addressing access to outdoor spaces for recreation in order to improve the lot of those in poverty rather than those with an ibis and a Prius. It also (importantly) notes that feedback will only be considered during this session of government and is more intended to inform the next round of incumbents of any potential for legislation reform.
As @whitestone notes with regards to heatmaps there may be little information on there from MTB users. I would say look at the empty spaces around Powys. Lots of farmland there. The Welsh Trail centres (NRW/FC/Private sector owned) are in an arc around the best road networks.

Always been a bit puzzled by English access law and I go back a bit ( got my Sheffield Campaign for Access to the Moors trespass runs booklet somewhere)

Can never work out how come a piece of legislation which is supposed to have the intent of giving the right of access is extensively used to define the maximum level of access when surely it was intended to be used to force landowners to give the minimum level of access that had been historically allowed.

The only damaging impact of CRoW I saw in The Peak was a proliferation of signs including plenty of "walkers only" where before nobody really knew.

I must admit to having told a Peak Park Ranger that I had the landowners permission to ride the section of Dukes Road towards Derwent Edge beyond the Derbyshire border because I was absolutely sure that every year the NT says in it's annual report that it wants to encourage cycling on its land - the big landowners need to stop saying and actually allow open access beyond the legal minimum

You make an interesting point about the National Trust

I think it's clear to many of us that it's time they revisited their existing approach.

[i]There was a thread on the fell running forums about the difficulty of keeping existing ROWs open and free of foliage due in part to financial restraints on local authorities.[/i]

If only there was a way to get more users using them, maybe by adopting a different access model?

[i]Yes it's a Strava heatmap but it does give an indication as to the level of use currently.[/i]

Except it doesn't. Unless London became an MTB Mecca without telling anyone.

Can anyone point to any evidence of an increase in erosion in Scotland post access changes? Otherwise let's put that non concern to the side...

mikewsmith - Member

They are not exactly that big

Glasgow is the 3rd biggest city in the UK!

Don't bring facts into it Northwind.

Dave

Long report from the LRRG [url= http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00451087.pdf ]here[/url], but the takeaway message regards access (page 210) is that:

[i]Now, ten years after the legislation came into force, the Group’s view is that the new statutory framework should be judged a considerable achievement that has delivered significant public benefits and is “generally working well on the ground”. There are undoubtedly problems to be addressed in some areas as described below and there have been some prominent recent issues. However, the Group considers that these are essentially issues over implementation rather than with the terms of the legislation.[/i]

@Dave As I noted earlier the heatmap is dominated by road cyclists, it would be nice to be able to filter between road & MTB.

The FRA thread was about footpaths rather than bridleways but unless there is a near constant passage of feet or wheels or hooves then foliage is going to take over pretty quickly. The bridleway (actually it's classified as a BOAT) that goes past our house goes from clear and open to jungle in about a month and that's with fairly regular usage by both horse riders and mountain bikers.

I looked at the Strava data for some of the classic Scottish MTB routes (Glen Sligachan, Torridon Loop, etc.) and the figures are a tiny percentage compared to trail centres, the data for classic rides south of the border wasn't much different (Bowderdale in the Howgills has under 350 logged rides) so even when there's existing trails they aren't getting used that much. A quick look at times for the Bowderdale segments shows 2010 being one of the early logged rides so that's 350 rides in 5 years. Even if just 10% of mountain bikers log their rides on Strava that still only gives 3500 rides. Compare that with somewhere like Gisburn Forest and the segments there have in the region of 25,000 attempts, by my maths 350/25000 = 1.4%. So less than 2% of a minority sport (I don't know how many mountain bikers there are in the UK) use existing rights of way. Any publicly funded body would need a lot of convincing to put time and money in to extending and then maintaining the bridleway network.

I'm not saying that the aim of extending access shouldn't be pursued but the financial practicalities and the glacial nature of government means it ain't gonna happen soon.

whitestone - Member

I looked at the Strava data for some of the classic Scottish MTB routes (Glen Sligachan, Torridon Loop, etc.) and the figures are a tiny percentage compared to trail centres,

Probably skewed by being in the arse end of nowhere though- compare torridon with, say, learnie trail centre and you probably get something more comparable. Or a non-purpose-built path in the Pentlands or Mugdock or something.

There might be a correlation between strava use and trail use too I suppose.

Whitestone, I disagree with he conclusion that a minority use rights of way, in fact the best survey to date says otherwise

[IMG] [/IMG]

[IMG] [/IMG]

[i]Any publicly funded body would need a lot of convincing to put time and money in to extending and then maintaining the bridleway network.[/i]

But we're not talking extending a bridleway network...

Well I contributed to that survey 😀 For me the ranges were too wide to be useful: if you rode both days of a weekend all year then you have roughly 100 days riding (I know but it makes the maths easier) so 25% is about two days a month, my trail centre usage is closer to 2 days [b]a year[/b], i.e. 2%.

Like I said the Strava analysis depends on the numbers of riders that use Strava so will be incomplete. But even looking at stuff in the Dales that appears in the various guidebooks you see a lot less usage than you might expect and certainly much less than in trail centres.

Perhaps a better comparison would be between dedicated trail centres and the biking centres (for want of a better term) such as Sutton Bank and the Dales Bike Centre that are a halfway house between fully signed/ maintained trails and "natural" bridleways.

It's easy to say that I went out on bridleway X and never saw anyone but you only have to be a minute or two ahead or behind another rider and you might never see them. Short of installing some sort of bike counter or sitting at a suitable point all day you aren't going to get complete data so have to work with what you can find.

Northwind - Member
mikewsmith - Member
They are not exactly that big

Glasgow is the 3rd biggest city in the UK!

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
Dave - Moderator
Don't bring facts into it Northwind.

[i]try England where you put 3 or 4 large cities on the border of an area of wilderness.[/i]

Where is this wilderness?

I think in the case of England "wilderness" would refer to uncultivated land, perhaps not wilderness a la "Nanook of the North"

I don't know anyone who uses Strava in the mountains, so I'd be wary of using it for reference. I thought it was a roadie thing.

As for paths getting overgrown, just ride them anyway. That's how we fix them up here. Nettles and thistles are just there to remind us it's summer, and heather is there to munch on your derailleur. 🙂

Dave - Moderator
try England where you put 3 or 4 large cities on the border of an area of wilderness.

Where is this wilderness?

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
whitestone - Member
I think in the case of England "wilderness" would refer to uncultivated land, perhaps not wilderness a la "Nanook of the North"

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
epicyclo - Member
I don't know anyone who uses Strava in the mountains, so I'd be wary of using it for reference. I thought it was a roadie thing.

As for paths getting overgrown, just ride them anyway. That's how we fix them up here. Nettles and thistles are just there to remind us it's summer, and heather is there to munch on your derailleur.

Know plenty of mountain bikers using strava, the relative imprint is important really, if you are able to think in scale and relatively.

I know quite a few who use Strava in the mountains, probably at least 50% of those I ride with. I use it more to log mileage, height gain, etc. than getting KOMs (yeah right!). I'm too much of a wimp to ever trouble the leader board on descents. 😛

I think it's reasonable to assume that if someone is using Strava (for whatever reason) at a trail centre then they are likely to also use it on natural trails. Is it accurate or representative? Phew! At the moment it's the only real world data we have to hand. On a thread about the Snowdon BW restrictions I think it was mentioned about there being a bike counter, if so then those figures could be correlated against the Strava logs for those segments and some Strava usage amongst mountain bikers estimated.

Snowdon being an example of mountain bikers acting responsibly and managing their access voluntarily. Something Mike points out ramblers using the pennine way are incapable of.

So let's not judge open access by the current bad example he's used hey? ;o)

Wilderness, that thing people use to refer to the bits of Scotland that are free to roam and really isolated.

They're not the [b]only[/b] bits of Scotland where the land reform act gave new access laws to, are they?

well if you reckon it will be fine can you deposit a couple of million to cover any repairs/issues that won't happen.

Best bit is there's no need to Mike...

Well pop your cash up, I'll give you 3% on it.

I'm still waiting for your evidence of wholesale erosion due to open access

There is no open access in a decently populated area, there is evidence of erosion in areas that are currently populated - such as the Cheviot stuff on the pennine way. There is a high chance that opening more will open up more problems. Hey great if it doesn't but don't just pretend it won't, who deals with it if it does. Planning and legislating responsibly means you think about these things and work out what might and could happen. So who deals with issues if they arise?

The Pentland Hills are on the outskirts of Edinburgh - a town with a population 1/2 million souls. There are a couple of paths that could do with a bit extra work but the area has somehow survived the LR(S)A. The Campsies, Kilpatricks and Gargunnock Hills are similarly close to Greater Glasgow (over 1.1 Million) and are similarly coping.

[img] [/img]
Part of the overland track, Tasmania. Heavily regulated, walking numbers regulated no other traffic.

Cool photo Mike, what are you trying to prove?

[i]The Pentland Hills are on the outskirts of Edinburgh - a town with a population 1/2 million souls. There are a couple of paths that could do with a bit extra work but the area has somehow survived the LR(S)A. The Campsies, Kilpatricks and Gargunnock Hills are similarly close to Greater Glasgow (over 1.1 Million) and are similarly coping.[/i]

Dave - Moderator
Cool photo Mike, what are you trying to prove?

Self regulation may work in Scotland but the population is tiny. A small number of people can cause a big problem. Open access sounds awesome. Sensible access is a better idea. Again if something goes wrong the burden will fall on the land owner which is unfair. There is nobody about to do the level of trail repairs that are needed in some areas if problems start.

[b][i]The Pentland Hills are on the outskirts of Edinburgh - a town with a population 1/2 million souls. There are a couple of paths that could do with a bit extra work but the area has somehow survived the LR(S)A. The Campsies, Kilpatricks and Gargunnock Hills are similarly close to Greater Glasgow (over 1.1 Million) and are similarly coping.[/i][/b]

Areas next to major conurbations in coping shocker. Tweed Valley probably gets more bike traffic than most of the UK but is similarly coping. Feel free to post more photo's from Australia to try and prove your point though...

There are parts of the country that are not compatible with horses or bikes.

There are parts of the country not compatible with open access on foot, but somehow that didn't prevent open access being introduced, or money being found to deal with it.

See Kinder Scout as an example