[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 97 09:23 GMT0
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: == No Subject ==
A two-edged weapon...btw I have in my possession somewhere a poor
photocopy of a GLEAM application form and it asks the applicant to
declare that he/she is in favour of the aims and objectives of GLEAM. So
*their* openness is (again) suspect.
HBRO= Hants & Berks Rover Owners Club. When I left, 250+ members. ARC
affil.
:-) Mick Dyer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 09 Mar 97 05:10:51 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: gleam applicants credentials
> a GLEAM application form and it asks the applicant to
> declare that he/she is in favour of the aims and objectives of GLEAM.
They say they are against environmental damage, with one lie
and say they are going to stop vehicles from 98% of unsurfaced roads with the
next lie
They dont say anything about prevention of ploughing, tipping, obstructions,
overgrowth.
So I suppose you could say they dont lie *all* the time.
We are all in favour of the first "aim", pity they are not.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 09 Mar 97 07:57:36 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: UCR's on Def Map ?
Have UCR's been put of the def map in any other counties?
H&WCC have been criticised at a user group meeting for the state of the UCR's
not making info available, & no policy to manage or maintain unsurfaced UCRs.
There response has been there catastrophic intention to close 130 (all)
unsurfaced roads to vehicles.
It is expensive and potentially confrontational to put UCRs on as BOATs.
However *if* it is legal and has been done elsewhere, why not show UCRs on the
def map (either all, or only unsurfaced "recreational" UCRs), but still shown
as UCRs. This will:-
give the desired publicity
show connectivity and thus give maximum recreational value
protect valuable wildlife corridors
enable maintenance to a bridleway standard, yet retaining full rights.
Is non-confrontational therefore inexpensive, and a one off excercise.
Reduce confusion to residents who say "it's not on the def map, get off"
NB The CC have a target to have def map on GIS by 1998.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 12:55:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Fwd: UCR's on Def Map ?
In a message dated 09/03/97 12:59:28, 100620.2156@CompuServe.COM (Chris
Marsden) writes:
<< Have UCR's been put of the def map in any other counties?
>>
Hampshire (Surveyors) dumped a load of UCRs onto the Definitive map many
years ago in the hope of shifting maintenance responsibility. Altough on Def
Map as RUPP the RoW Dept. refused to work on them. They were dual
classification routes that were shown on both the Def Map And Surveyors Map.
Messrs Bush and Neville - your thoughts on Bucklebury 64 please - I Will be
without PC for next week or two and would like to put up or shut up with
Babtie.
DT
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: 100620.2156@CompuServe.COM (Chris Marsden)
To: RoW@playground.sun.com (RoW Mailing List.)
Date: 97-03-09 07:59:28 EST
Have UCR's been put of the def map in any other counties?
H&WCC have been criticised at a user group meeting for the state of the UCR's
not making info available, & no policy to manage or maintain unsurfaced UCRs.
There response has been there catastrophic intention to close 130 (all)
unsurfaced roads to vehicles.
It is expensive and potentially confrontational to put UCRs on as BOATs.
However *if* it is legal and has been done elsewhere, why not show UCRs on
the
def map (either all, or only unsurfaced "recreational" UCRs), but still
shown
as UCRs. This will:-
give the desired publicity
show connectivity and thus give maximum recreational value
protect valuable wildlife corridors
enable maintenance to a bridleway standard, yet retaining full rights.
Is non-confrontational therefore inexpensive, and a one off excercise.
Reduce confusion to residents who say "it's not on the def map, get off"
NB The CC have a target to have def map on GIS by 1998.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 12:55:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Lost file
Hi Chaps
In doing a back up I have lost my AOL address file. Any help in rebuilding
it - write to me - would be greatfully received.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 09 Mar 97 18:00:47 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Old Hall
Hi All,
Dale has had some ongoing correspondence with Powys RoW re a 5ft gate on a BOAT
at Old Hall, so1566. (To add insult, the RED way mark arrow was ON the 5ft
gate) See GREENLANES p20 Jan 97, for copy letters. There were promises to
remove the obstruction in Nov 96, but by Mid Feb There it was, small as life, So
5 users abated the nuisance, in true Rebbeca style, (Chainsaw, fencing tool,
baler twine etc.) and we sent a letter thanking them for their speedy action,
but pointing out the work appeared "temporary".
It does seem that Action Direct can work far better than patience at times.
There are 5 x 5ft gates the H&W have but 22 days to remove, or the same fate
will befall them.
Chris
Dear Mr Wyatt,
Thank you for your letter of 25 February regarding Byway LR 1037. However, your
appreciation was misplaced as it wasn't me who cut the fence post - I assume it
was a path user. (tee, hee! DW). However, I have manged to meet with the
landowners and a contractor on site and we have arranged to put a wider gate in
the gap - we measured their Land Rover (which is one of the largest models) and
the gate will be wide enough for a vehicle to easily pass through. I think to do
the necessary cutting back of the bank to allow the 10 foot gate in would be
unreasonable. The work is intended to be carried out within the next couple of
weeks - I shall contact you again when it has been done.
With regard to you report about the UCR near Walton (the southern end is C1083
and the western end is U1181), I have passed the details to the relevant
Highways Inspector for investigation. I will ask him to contact you directly
with any information.
Love and Kisses (Editorial licence)
Lorraine J
RoW Section
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 18:29:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bye bye
Hi chaps
I'll write again in a couple of weeks - in the mean time eschew obfuscation.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Subject: tuneing out...
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 01:03:09 -0500
From: William Caloccia <caloccia@OpenMarket.com>
Hi Chris & all,
It seems as thoug Chris has the helm, and the initial start-up stuff
is past, so I'll be tuning out from the list for a bit, if anything requires
my attention (updates to the row web pages, etc.), I can be reached at the
usual addresses.
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 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 8 lines 287 [forwarded 4 whitespace 74]
Output: lines 284 [content 142 forwarded 4 (cut 0) whitespace 73]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970310 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]