[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:13:15 -0500
From: Don Scott <Donald_Scott@compuserve.com>
Subject: Row Database specification (Proposed)
Here is a possible spec for a green lane database
The lane reference is the national grid square and the 4 digit grid ref for
one end of the lane
this is as per discussions at the VLS(ROW)CTD
Comments ASAP please
You could have this style database as excel or access or just a text file
I can collate all the various database into one master if you wish
Don
Field Content
Lane Ref TQ1245
Square TQ
Grid Ref 1 123
456
Grid Ref 2 789
999
Nearest Town/ Village 50 characters
Length Km 999.9
County Ref. 25 chars
Status Rupp Boat UCR Unknown
Drivability 1-9 1=car 2=4x4 3=2x4x4? etc 8=Camel
9=>Camel
Senic Interest 1-9 1=Boring etc
9=Excellent
Description upto 1024 chars of free text for comments etc about lane
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 14:12:34 GMT
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Row Database specification (Proposed)
In message <199703120818_MC2-1270-EDD3@compuserve.com>
Don Scott <Donald_Scott@compuserve.com> writes:
> Here is a possible spec for a green lane database
> The lane reference is the national grid square and the 4 digit grid ref for
[ truncated by list-digester (was 8 lines)]
> I can collate all the various database into one master if you wish
> Don
Personally any of the 3 formats (excel/access or text) would suit me.
I'm sure that most users with computers have some form of
software that will read the first 2 formats?? Yes / No??
> Field Content
> Lane Ref TQ1245
[ truncated by list-digester (was 17 lines)]
> 9=Excellent
> Description upto 1024 chars of free text for comments etc about lane
I think the field content is fine, though if you were to include Scottish RoW
then you'd need the status field to be able to accept - Drove Road (DR),
Military Road (Mil), etc.
In the states, the Searchers (an off-road group who made lots of videos
about Moab and other trail driving areas shown at various times by Sky),
use a system of 1 to 5+ (1 being 2wd stuff, 5+ being seriously hard with
vehicle damage likely). I'm sure something similar as you propose would
be fine. The only difficulty is that one mans 3 is another mans 5+, so each
level requires an identifying factor to ensure commonality. (For example
in climbing you often hear people talking about a Vs, and a half grade
above it a Scottish VS - different climbing areas, with their differnet types
of climb have slightly different grades applied to climbs - overall its not a
huge problem, it just requires you to exercise a bit of caution on the first
few climbs in a new area, till you get the feel for the local grades.
As for use by Camels, I think that's a bit hopeful.... ;-)
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 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 12 Mar 97 09:26:04 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: who
who row
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:08:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Guess who said this?
<< The County Council maintains the general stance that in the absence
of conclusive evidence to the contrary, unmade green lanes do not
have public vehicular rights over them. In the circumstances I
regret that your offer of assistance with repair cannot be accepted. >>
This was in response to an offer to fill in a waterlogged hole, on Green Lane
Day, on the edge of a National Park. No mention was made in the offer letter
of any particular use or status, except that it is a UCR.
Entries should be accompanied by a five pound note, and the prize will be
five pounds, and an explanation of the term 'balance of probability'.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:25:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Row Database specification (Proposed)
In a message dated 12-3-97 14:15:01, you write about a database for RoW
details.
You seem not to be aware of the efforts made in this regard by the TRF, who
have a similar code for lanes, but not the same. They use a number such as
118/93 where 118 is the OS Landranger map and 93 a unique number generated by
the keeper of that map. Many grid refs include the ends of more than one
lane, so your system would not prevent anomalies. Also, by your system, the
same lane could have two numbers, one for each end. In the TRF system,
wherever there are choices, eg a route on two maps, with two ends, the lower
number is always used.
I am fairly familiar with the TRF system, and it seems a shame if another
different version of the same thing is being created independently. Of
course, co-operation would require the TRF to acknowledge that there is an
advantage in letting others know about their precious info. We have discussed
this in the forum recently.
You also need to take on board that there are lanes which are quite passable
by eg lightweight Landrovers, or Suzukis, but would be impossible for Camels
because of height or width problems (if by Camels you really mean vehicles
kitted out for the Camel Trophy. If not, please do not write in code). And
where do motorcycles fit into your scheme? In some areas eg south Lakes,
north Dorset, there are lots of lanes simply impossible for sidecars never
mind 4x4s, but 4x4 users need info on them in order to help their colleagues
and allow them to spread the load (and to advise others where rights exist
that it would be folly for them to include in an itinerary).
I suggest that before this project goes further the organiser is put in touch
with me either directly or via 'RoW playground', and I will try to broker a
deal where the TRF and your scheme can be commonised, and information shared.
Cheers, tim stevens, LARA info officer.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 97 20:02 GMT0
From: halftone@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
Subject: Re:National database (and PR).
> A database or Byways and UCRs is essential. Much discussion can follow
> on quite
> how, but we do have many people with the technology, access to email and
> better
> communications and the sense of injustice to do this for byways.
It seems such an obviously desirable goal, I assumed there must be good
reasons why it hasn't happened - either political or financial.
> I would like to see more TRF chaps on the RoW List and hopefully some
> BDS CTC
> and even BHS as they have so much to gain. It would be a shame if it was
> predominently 4wd. (which it isnt)
Steve (Rawlings) suggested that the TRF Bulletin and website publicise
this list. Sounds good to me. The MAG and BMF sites should also be asked
to provide links. Also bike magazines - I've just written a feature on
bikers & the internet, and was too late hearing about this list to give it
a mention, but will include it on the list of links and stuff that I'll be
putting up at my site when the piece appears.
Like the lanes themselves, the more publicity there is, the more
opposition is likely to eavesdrop. Anything particularly tactical ought
to go via email, therefore.
Incidentally, does anyone know of any ramblers/UK countryside lists? I
haven't spotted any usenet groups except rec.backcountry which will, I
expect, be so US-biased it's irrelevant. Now I *don't* think it's a good
idea to steam into such places aggressively, but where rubbish is being
talked about veh.access, it needs to be met with calm and rational
argument. I'm not volunteering BTW :)
> Some info is common to other groups fighting for FP and BD status, but
> they do
> not suffer the same unjustified opposition that Byways users do.
Well, they aren't so much of a minority that's easy to kick. If the RA
still has an adopted policy of wanting to see *all* offroad motorsport
banned, that does make any cooperation very unlikely (have they? anyone
know - it was policy a few years ago). I guess the perspective of such
groups is that they'd gain nothing from cooperating with small bunches of
renegade vehicle-users. Perhaps they are right, but they are being
excluded from newly privatised ex-Forestry Commission etc. paths just as
we are. Personally I think we have more in common than not, but I have to
admit such an alliance looks unlikely.
> I do not feel it practical to set up databases of anything *other* than
> Byways
> RUPPS & Green lane UCRs. That is what the def map is for.
OK, but it would be possible to do everything, with RA-scale resourcing.
Certainly not, without.
> The national % of RoW with Vehicular rights is only 2%. (CoCo). However
> Worcestershire has Zero byways out of 4,677km , and Hereford has just
> 19km out
> of 3,244km. (only 8 + 4 km of rupps)
Should be do-able in a Windows Cardfile, therefore :) / :(
> And then they plan to downgrade all unsurfaced UCRs to bridleways. (or
> less)
> If they succeed in one County, other CCs will try it. IE H&W followed
> Bucks.
> Bucks have seen sense, but H&W are ploughing ahead.
The pressure is on all CC's to save money, minimise their duties and
liabilities in every possible direction - as far as they are concerned,
whether it's a One O'clock club, public toilet or UCR doesn't seem to
matter much. And yes, they all copy each other where something is
perceived to work.
The thing is that rational, or even legal argument, isn't all that
successful - it's slow and expensive compared to adverse publicity, which
is what they really hate. Here I take my hat off to George Monbiot and the
"Land is Ours" occupation of the York Road Wandsworth Guinness site last
May, which although a disaster in most ways was a media coup which gave
George TV debating time and a column in the Guardian (he was charismatic
and rational enough to carry it off, too).
So I think media management of much of the stuff that offroaders get up
to, in terms of lane repair, voluntary restraint, co-operation with horsey
groups etc, is an area that would repay attention. Even if only at a local
level, such things should never happen without publicising them - telling
local newspapers and radio in advance, and inviting journos and
photographers along - if necessary taking them on runs etc. so they can
get a feel of what it's all about, and what a polite and considerate bunch
we all are.
If the mechanisms are not there and this doesn't happen, with one person
acting as a PRO within each local group but liasing with the national PRO,
a huge opportunity is being lost. And they need to get to know the local
media beforehand, to keep them up to date on local difficulties. One
person doing that rather than wading through user reports or maps would be
an investment _and_ they get to drink beer instead of tea :)
> Chris
> less)
Tony Sleep
-------- Original Message --------
>From 100620.2156@CompuServe.COM Tue Mar 11 02:26:40 1997
tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA10702; Tue, 11 Mar 1997
02:26:40 GMT
[149.174.217.133])
by playground.sun.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA15819
for <RoW@playground.sun.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 18:26:12 -0800 (PST)
id PAA07855; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 15:29:06 -0500
Date: 10 Mar 97 15:27:30 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re:National database.
Message-ID: <970310202730_100620.2156_BHL138-1@CompuServe.COM>
Tony
> ....to co-operate and set up a national database of all RoW.
A database or Byways and UCRs is essential. Much discussion can follow on
quite
how, but we do have many people with the technology, access to email and
better
communications and the sense of injustice to do this for byways.
I would like to see more TRF chaps on the RoW List and hopefully some BDS
CTC
and even BHS as they have so much to gain. It would be a shame if it was
predominently 4wd. (which it isnt)
Some info is common to other groups fighting for FP and BD status, but
they do
not suffer the same unjustified opposition that Byways users do.
I do not feel it practical to set up databases of anything *other* than
Byways
RUPPS & Green lane UCRs. That is what the def map is for.
The national % of RoW with Vehicular rights is only 2%. (CoCo). However
Worcestershire has Zero byways out of 4,677km , and Hereford has just
19km out
of 3,244km. (only 8 + 4 km of rupps)
And then they plan to downgrade all unsurfaced UCRs to bridleways. (or
less)
If they succeed in one County, other CCs will try it. IE H&W followed
Bucks.
Bucks have seen sense, but H&W are ploughing ahead.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 20:41:53 +0000
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Reclassify UCRs
Hi All
this a copy of an email I sent to Andy Bush
If anyone can give any info please do.
_______________________________________________________________________
I Andy
I have just had a phone call to :-
Mr John bridgemond
Highways Agency
Traffic Policy Division
Great Minster House
76 Marshall Street
London
SW1P 4DR
Tel:- 0171 271 5116
Part of what was said is that in section 36 (6) of the Highways act
1980, reference is made to Highways on the list of streets to be
maintained at public expence, (which shall including rights of way)
RUPPs, bridle paths and foot paths, which would indicate that not all
unclassified roads on the LIST OF HIGHWAYS MAINTAINED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE
have vehicular rights of way.
This would indicate that not all highways on the list have vehicular
rights, which is what the North Yorkshire
CC is saying, also there is some more references in section 53 of the
same act, that only RUPPs should be reclassified ie the one marked on
the maps as RUPS or described in the statements. but he agreed that
there should be some form of sign indicating that there is not
vehicular rights. also he felt that it would be up to the council or
police to prove that you are on a road that has not got vehicular rights
if there is no sign.
He said that I should be able to ask the Council to explain the
statement they have made, and what is the
reason for saying it.
Any way will keep on looking.
Here are some more points of contact.
Highways Agency N/W - David Belley 0161 952 4000, Very Helpful
Highways Agency Midlands - Patric Sewle 0121 678 8148, they can
recognise the Reference on the letter to H&W CC. ie WMR/P/5058/116/18
but they say there is a nuber missing after the /5058/ may be some one
else will have more luck.
I have now got a copy of the DoE Circular 2/93 which is the one that
consolidates the guidence on Public Rights of Way. Published 25/1/93. if
you have not got a copy I can send you one. Also if anyone knows of
any revisions to this document could they let me know.
Bye for now,
Brian.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 13 Mar 97 03:00:54 EST
From: Chris Marsden <100620.2156@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Highways for ever
Tim Said
> Downgrading to bridleway etc does not take away rights which do exist even
> if evidence for them is not produced (but it does need to exist somewhere or
> you are in difficulties when challenged).
Surely Downgrading by 116 does take away vehicular rights forever, they can
NEVER be restored? Or were you refering to PI's?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 97 08:25 GMT0
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Subject: Database
<<<You could have this style database as excel>>>
Yes please!!! Dont envy you the workload tho'..
:-) Mick Dyer
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 9 lines 517 [forwarded 59 whitespace 117]
Output: lines 486 [content 277 forwarded 42 (cut 17) whitespace 115]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970313 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]