[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:09:36 GMT
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Open or closed list?
Chris Marsden wrote:
lanes, ie, as Dave
> T posted in Hampshire lanes, IF there is a VERY wide audience, are
we going to
> risk overuse on what is possible sensitive routes.
> Limited exposure to a responsible group who are frequently involved with the
[ truncated by list-digester (was 6 lines)]
> Could the nature of the list be altered to "OK so Ive recked the ones I had,
> gimme some more to bog down in" ?
I understand this point completely - because there are
relatively few legal lanes which have been driven in my
area, it's a matter of constant concern. That's why I don't
tell people where the lanes are - just how to research them
for themselves. Its also one of the reasons why I don't use
them for my business - I take 3 vehicles this weekend, and
next weekend there'll be 33.
I would suggest that only those routes which are already
well known and of a build quality able to handle moderate
to heavy traffic be named here - with the exception perhaps
of a call for proof of use when a lane is threatened by closure.
I don't see a reason ever to put MR's on the open list.
For those who live in a particular area, and whom are hopefully
known to each other, then private e-mail is the best option for
discussing lanes by name and location.
Although the various magazines have in the past printed MR's
(and even copied the OS map in one or two cases) I find they
are far more cagey nowadays in giving away locations or names
willy nilly - though it sometimes still happens.
I personally don't mind the air of generality which arises from
not printing route names...does anyone else??
Owen
--
--------------------------------------------------
Central 4x4 Outdoor Leisure Off-Road Driving Centre
3 Clover Place, Bo'ness, West Lothian, EH51 0QW
(+44) 01506 516448, (+44) 0370 471277
Web Page: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/central4x4/
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Peter Dowson <ukpad@software-ag.de>
Subject: RE: Open or closed list?
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:17:16 -0000
I think there is a valid point here. Care must be taken to ensure that =
the list is not used to give people access to new lanes. I personally =
think that until the whole situation is cleared up, the act of checking =
the status and legality of a lane is a positive step in controlling the =
use. Obviously, it would be nice to be able to pick up an OS map and =
know that the lane marked is usable ( just like those people who use the =
maps for walking or driving down a tarmacced road ), but I do no think =
we are there yet !!
I am not sure the best way of protecting lanes from the casual reader of =
the list except by not being too specific over location details.
Peter Dowson
----------
From: Chris Marsden[SMTP:100620.2156@CompuServe.COM]
Sent: 05 March 1997 09:37
Subject: Open or closed list?
Opinion seems clear and points valid so far.
One further consideration, when discussing certain identified lanes, ie, =
as Dave
T posted in Hampshire lanes, IF there is a VERY wide audience, are we =
going to
risk overuse on what is possible sensitive routes.
Limited exposure to a responsible group who are frequently involved with =
the
monotoring and repair of lanes is fine, but could overuse result if =
possibly
hundreds of users had details of problem areas?
Could the nature of the list be altered to "OK so Ive recked the ones I =
had,
gimme some more to bog down in" ?
No axe to grind, I just want to see it right first time.
I do want to see all budding RoW workers and all other interested =
parties join
in - an education forum.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 06:53:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bucklebury 64 & other Berks stuff
Good morning colleagues,
I now have the background papers to the proposed TRO on Bucklebury 64.
Apparently the AWDC "do not object" whilst there has been no response from
"the British Horse Society, the Trail Riders Fellowship and the Hants and
Berks Rover Owners."
I would be grateful if those organisations could let me know if that is
factual. Clearly if no one else gives a toss (legal term) then why the
fffffff flying fish should I?
Mrs Still a neighbour to the above mentioned lane uses JP on her letterhead.
I have had a pop at the Lord Chancellor's Dept ref her campaigning with
GLEAM. She retired in 93 "However the Lord Chancellor is very concerned that
the good reputation of the magistracy should be maintained and justices on
the Supplemental List should take care not to jeopardise that position."
I find it odd that following all the recent anti GLEAM mail of late the
matter of RUPP 64 has been ignored by all concerned. The first I heard about
is was from a non club 4x4 user from Newbury!! Begs the question 'what are
the TRF, AWDC, H&BRO club reps doing?'
OK I'll be alright after breakfast.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:49:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Open or closed - lane details etc
Heedlessly promoting a sensitive lane can be a problem we all need to be wary
about.
I am sure, though, that we will soon develop a sort of code for lanes we are
referring to which does not involve grid references. Even then, we should not
have an insurmountable problem as we know that even the enforcement experts
Her Majesties Contabulary cannot cope with such complicated things as six
numbers in a row.
The TRF has developed a useful code to identify (eventually) every lane in
the country for internal purposes. When this page extends to include a few
more TRF members we should have a debate on the value of keeping that code
internal to local TRF groups only (as now) or making it available to all LARA
members. It is only a tool, but a useful one to avoid outsiders knowing
exactly where you mean. (But, it was not invented at all for that purpose).
Owen's point is well stated. His idea of only publicising sustainable lanes
is fundamental to the whole business. We should be able to demonstrate that
we really can help to manage use in this way, as responsible persons seeking
sustainability. This idea is also basic to the Lake District Hierarchy of
Routes idea, and it will be very useful, when we come to try to spread the
idea to other areas, to be able to show that we have already applied this.
For this purpose the TRF code also helps as each lane has a unique number.
Please note that the word Sustainable is used, never Suitable.
Sustainable means we can hand it on to the future, so keep things usable, do
not wear them out, and never close them, either.
Suitable means is it OK today, and can vary with weather, time of year, type
of traffic, etc. Also it is a term overloaded with offensive baggage from its
use to deny rights in the 68 Act.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:39:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Dunlop-Masters Axis, threat or opportunity?
It has been suggested that there is an advantage from D&M :
Up to now, other users have kept their distance from us petrol-headed
scallywags because they did not suffer if RUPPs went down to bridleway. Now,
their routes are all under threat from Superman & Superwoman who at a stroke
will get them off the map. For landowners, for money.
So, we can perhaps expect a few bicyclists, a few more horse-riders, and even
one or two pedestrians, to sidle up to us for assistance in getting them off
their backs, too.
Keep your fingers crossed
cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 20:13:01 +0000
From: Mike Cattell <Mike@mikecat.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: LARA response re s116: Comments please: TS
In message <970304190213_446926703@emout19.mail.aol.com>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>Green lanes are a valued resource for recreation, for wildlife, and for
Snipped with a very large pair of scissors!!
>roads is untimely, and should at the very least be suspended pending a
>ministerial announcement.
What a brilliant piece of prose, expresses my sentiments exactlly.
Do you mind if I copy and HTMLise it to my Web Site, Im sure it will interest
others greatly. I dont think it lets any secrets out of the Bag!!!
I will not change the text in any way and will off course Credit you and
LARA with its authorship.
I will also put a mail link to you if you want
Kind regards,
PS the psudo chains have been removed from the gates I was talking
about early last week. Removed within 12 Hours of my phone call with no
animosity, not bad.
Mike Cattell, Christleton, Cheshire, U.K.
http://www.mikecat.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 20:03:07 +0000
From: Mike Cattell <Mike@mikecat.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Open or closed list?
In message <970305093652_100620.2156_BHL77-2@CompuServe.COM>
, Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM> writes
>Opinion seems clear and points valid so far.
>One further consideration, when discussing certain identified lanes, ie, as Dave
>T posted in Hampshire lanes, IF there is a VERY wide audience, are we going to
>risk overuse on what is possible sensitive routes.
I have had a list of lanes on my web site for 4 months now and was
worried about this very fact. The local RoW man acctually wanted more
use (Responsibly, care in times of heavy rain etc.) We have together
monitored use and noticed only a slight increase in use.
I think at the current time we over estimate the wide readership of net
information.
>Limited exposure to a responsible group who are frequently involved with the
>monotoring and repair of lanes is fine, but could overuse result if possibly
>hundreds of users had details of problem areas?
>risk overuse on what is possible sensitive routes.
This is fine but I worry about a commercial interest reading my pages and
pinching a bit of research for free. Some one mentioned not finding lists of
drivable lanes in tourist information centres. This is probabally potentially
the biggest source of overuse and damage from ill equiped vehicles.
>Could the nature of the list be altered to "OK so Ive recked the ones I had,
>gimme some more to bog down in" ?
>hundreds of users had details of problem areas?
I thought we were here to talk about issues regarding RoW's in general or
in specific cases of problems, surely were not out to provide guidebooks
or to save some people a bit of basic research after all that should be part
and parcel of using the lanes.
>No axe to grind, I just want to see it right first time.
>gimme some more to bog down in" ?
I think FWIW that the list should be open with a clearly defined rational as
to what is acceptable to post and whats not. Any one who joins for any
other reason will get pissed off and leave.
>I do want to see all budding RoW workers and all other interested parties join
>in - an education forum.
>hundreds of users had details of problem areas?
Quite right.
Just my 2p's worth.
Mike Cattell, Christleton, Cheshire, U.K.
http://www.mikecat.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 18:25:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Open or closed list re over-use
I wonder if we aren't all a bit paranoid about 'those careless others' using
the lanes that 'we careful ones' have 'discovered'.
Anyone who finds anything new from our discussions will also be subject to
the rest of our comments about sensible use, sustainability, tread lightly,
codes of conduct, 4 Ws, etc etc. Some of it has to rub off. Where did YOU
learn to be sensible? You weren't born sensible, for sure!
I am certain that we lose more lanes from under-use than from over-use. This
applies as much to Public Inquiries where we do not submit enough evidence of
user, as it does to s116, and of course those counties where use is minimal
are the ones with the blocked, overgrown, neglected, etc routes which would
never have got like that with a bit of use. Not because no damage would
occur, but because someone would do something about it. Like we do on Green
Lane Day, etc. They are also the counties where officers have never heard of
us, don't care about us, and think that the slightest use will overwhelm
their budgets. None of this happens with over-use, even on such over-used
routes as the Ridgeway.
Over-use can be managed by voluntary restraint, and if there is over-use of
lanes we publicise, we will know about it in time to manage things, won't we?
And if those 'wicked commercial operators' cause problems, just you let me
know. They have a code of conduct, too, and if we can identify the rogues we
have a chance to put the job right before the police, the press, the
councillors, and other bumblers get at it.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 05 Mar 97 18:48:08 EST
From: Richard Brownlee <101360.3273@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Open or closed list?
Hi all
Just my thoughts
I initially thought that it would be a good idea to keep the list closed - to
prevent abuse of the information that will come out, or to prevent 'antis' from
earwigging.
In a way it would seem the safest option, but then would we not be limiting our
information sources?
It would be nice to have County RoW officers, horse riders, walkers and all
other user groups talking to each other through the list. Maybe then we could
get on a little better, understand each other's problems and develop a
relationship of trust(ish)
Even an anti or two may provide a bit of sport now and again:-) Then again this
would be the ideal forum to plant seeds of doubt in their closed little minds.
Individual lanes could not be discussed with grid refs etc, but this is not
strictly necessary anyway. 'Sensitive' information could be passed on by
private mail if necessary.
So now I think that the list should be open, with a few ground rules:
RoW and associated topics only
No sales or commercial activity permitted
All postings must have Name, Interest (eg AWDC, BHS, Ramblers etc) and County
> but those that want "use up to my level and no more", will not be welcome.
Cheers
Richard
Surrey AWDC RoW Representative
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Subject: Re: Open or closed list? Access to information ? Consider that...
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 20:16:49 -0500
From: William Caloccia <caloccia@OpenMarket.com>
Availability of Information:
If I've understood some of what I read, it is the duty of the gov't organizatios
(from what has already been passed into law by Parliment) to clearly mark the
lanes in question as to their level of access, and to make this info available
in map form.
I can only presume that this information has commercial value if it is not
widely or easily available. I am not familliar with the issue of the info
being requested at tourist offices, but can only theorize that if the
information was indded freely available, there would be no reason why a local
tourist office would not have it (unless the management was against such use).
If there is concern about the conditions of lanes in inclimate weather (ok,
so the other 10 months of the year), then those concerns should be included
with the route information, and as readily available.
Distribution Channels:
The major advantage the land access groups, 4wd groups and TRF can offer is
that with their distribution of the information, they also form a support and
referral network, so that if you source the information from a local groups
Green Lanes officer, then there exists the opportunity for personal contact
and referral as to which lanes ought to be 'safe' for use, etc.
So, once again, I would side with the best way to educate the questionalbe
or novice user is to provide as much info as possible, including the concerns
of the users groups that the lanes not be damaged so that they may continue
to be enjoyed by all users.
As for how wide the audience is, I would suspect that only a small percentage
of the 4wd owners out there (who would be so inclined as to green lane) would
have access to the web. And I don't recall seeing any web kiosks at the
local tourist office lately :-)
'Real mail' vs. 'Educating Newbies'
And I do realize that some of the folks already on this list are
some of the more sophisticated/experienced RoW campaigners out there, and
it may be a drag to go through similar questions from those with less
experience joining (but then that is why lists have a Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) document - to bring newbies up to speed and provide the
basic information so that a higher level discussion can carry on. My guess
is none of you would have objections to having more educated RoW campaingers
out in the field :-)
Consider that what you send in e-mail is effectively published.
As for what to say, or not to say, there is the distinct possibility that the
mail sent will be archived, and available to others in the future (heck, doing
a search on my name has turned up posts to rec.autos.sport a decade ago -- back
when resources were much more expensive, and nobody would have though all that
chuff would be archived for the next generation !)
Cheers,
Bill Caloccia wpc@Caloccia.Net
http://www.Caloccia.Net/wpc/
R
http://www.Land-Rover.Team.Net/
R 1 3 2wd H D
+--|--| o | L 3 Land Rovers First
2 4 4wd L | 2 because
'63 SIIa RHD 88" H 1 Land Rovers Last
793-PTA '90 RR County
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 10 lines 547 [forwarded 33 whitespace 129]
Output: lines 509 [content 287 forwarded 31 (cut 2) whitespace 123]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970306 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]