[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 05:19:56 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Tiffs
Peter, Steve,
For my pennyworth, I believe Compuserve can not presently send/recieve
binary files. It was a 360kb file and took 2 mins to download on a 14,400
modem. (and was then unreadable), Also if there are any delivery problems,
the sender will get it all back again, as well as their own copy. Small
files are OK, but I feel it would be better to describe briefly and send
only to those that wish to see it, and can. However I do not want to be a
stick in the mud, and not use available technology.
When I sent the Circular 2/93+appendix, it was so large (100k) it went as
an attached file, I trust it was readable to all those who wanted it. I
thought twice before posting a long message but I had 6 requests for it, so
I considered it worthwhile. (It was done at weekend rate
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: glenn.rees@PAREURO.COM
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 11:08:16 +0000
Subject: Stropy Farmers
Et Al
I have listed below an email I sent Gareth back last November. Has
anyone else had problems on this track?
Cheers
Glenn
______________________________ Forward Header _____________________________=
_____
Subject: Stropy Farmers
Author: Glenn Rees at PARLON2
Date: 19/11/96 09:08
Gareth
Trevor (fc101@msn.com) & I have just returned from a short week in mid
Wales. We had intended spending the night at Claerwen, at the end of the
track by the bridge. Unfortunately we were met by the local farmer who
would not let us pass, claiming the road ahead was blocked. After a short
altercation(5min), during which the farmer picked up a brick and threatened=
Trevor, we retraced our tracks. He did have 3 other workers with him, but
they generally kept out of the argument, but who knows what if things had
turned nasty.
Have you had or heard of any similar problems along this track or in that
area?
I believe Trevor is going to write to the Powys RoW Officer. Unfortunately
we did not get his name, or the registration of his blue LR90, with Ifor
Williams 4 wheel, 2 level sheep trailer.
Cheers
Glenn
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: glenn.rees@PAREURO.COM
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 11:08:14 +0000
Subject: Re:
Steve
The TIF came out OK for me , reading it through Lotus Freelance. It
prints well in colour too.
The wall looks as if it has been there for some years, what is the
white line across the track, is it meant as a barrier?
Cheers
Glenn
> Author: MIME:steve@wcceh.gov.uk at INTERNET
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
> Oldbury Hill Byway MR412
> >>>>snip
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 06 Apr 97 06:33:01 EDT
From: Richard Brownlee <101360.3273@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Dangerous walks
Hi Charlie
Count me in
I thoroughly enjoy asserting my rights against people like this
Regards
Richard
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: glenn.rees@PAREURO.COM
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 12:05:43 +0000
Subject: Re: Tiffs
Steve, Chris, Peter, Et Al
I received the TIF OK, and CompServe is our service provider, it
came through as a 229k file. It prints well on an HP colour
plotter to, but then I dont have the problem of downloading time.
> Subject: Tiffs
> Author: PC:Byway@compuserve.com at INTERNET
Glenn
[ truncated by list-digester (was 26 lines)]
> I considered it worthwhile. (It was done at weekend rate
> Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:33:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Deputation
Hi guys
Charlie's idea of a deputation is a good one. Any one with MAG connections
in the Masters Area - Let me know cause I'd love to be there.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:33:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PI - Candovers
Hi - especialy Tim & Alan
The Hampshire (Basingstoke and Dean Borough No 13 and 35) (Parish of
Candovers) Public Path Reclassification Orders 1989 and 1991
(The DoE waste no time)
I refer to previous corredpondence....
Due to the quantity and content of the evidence submitted, following the
advertising of the Inspector's proposed modifications, it has been decided
that another local inquiry will be necessary.
Details.. in due course.
D Musgrave
RoW Sect
letter dated 2 April
Now whos evidence, that is the question?
If it was Masters who attended Candovers then will she have the bottle to
attend. Was it ours.
This will be a show trial. Andy B, Steve and all clubs MUST make an effort
on this one.
On a different tack I have great pleasure in relating that I lead 8 TRF
members past Mrs Mills front door today and heard not a squeek. With three
2strokes in the pack it could not be described as 'by stealth'.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: NYCC
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 21:14:40 +0100
Seen your posting about section 56 and thought you might like a copy of my
s56 notice. ould not follow it up at the magistrates court because our ex
treasurer had embezelled our funds and then torched himself.
HIGHWAYS ACT 1980
SECTION 56
Proceedings for the repair of a highway
Mr A.Mowatt
Director of Highways and Transportation
Kent County Council
Sandling Block
Springfield
Maidstone
Kent
ME14 2LQ
TAKE NOTICE THAT I, Mr Stephen John Neville of 19 Henley Deane, Gravesend,
Kent hereby serve NOTICE on the highway authority for Kent (namely Kent
County Council) and claim that the way defined as Oldbury Lane and depicted
as MR412 on the definitive map and statement for the County of Kent is a
highway and that you are liable for the maintenance of the said highway at
public expense.
AND TAKE NOTICE that PORTIONS of the said highway are out of repair.
1. The part of the said byway open to all traffic at Oldbury village
proceeding from the east end of MR412, approximately 200 metres; in
particular a section extending for 20 metres or thereabouts at OS grid
reference TQ585563 where the banks of the highway have fallen into the
carriageway.
2. Also at the top of the gradient from the eastern end of the said highway
where erosion has caused a 5 to 10 metre section of the highway to become
gullied and narrowed to insufficient width to permit the passing of a
carriage of 2 metres width.
AND TAKE NOTICE that I hereby require you pursuant to sub-section (1) of
Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 to state:
a) whether you admit that the said portion of the way is a highway
maintainable at the public expense; and
b) whether you admit that you are the authority liable to maintain the said
portion of the way; and
c) whether you admit that the proper standard of repair of the said way
will include compliance with the following parameters:
i) the way shall be made suitable for the passage of carriages throughout
its entire length
ii) that the minimum width of the said way save as otherwise described upon
or in the definitive map and accompanying statement for the County of Kent
prepared under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
iii) that the surface of the repaired section of the gradient thereof
shall be continuous with the other parts of the surface of the said way
(and shall not include a step or functional equivalent of a step).
Furthermore I require that the above schedule of works be completed within
3 months of the service of this notice.
Dated 21 June 1996
Signed ………………………
Stephen John Neville
Mr A.Mowatt
Kent County Council 19 Henley Deane
Highways and Transportation Gravesend
Sandling Block Kent
Maidstone DA11 8SU
Kent
ME14 2LQ
21 June 1996
HA56Oldbury
Dear Mr Mowatt
Oldbury Hill Byway
Following discussions with your Mid Kent Highways Management Unit and
subsequent lack of action over various problems with this highway I have
this day served a Highways Act 1980 Section 56 notice on the Council for
proceedings for repair of the highway.
Completely separated from this, I wish to make an official complaint to the
Council over the inaction of the local highways management unit regarding
the obstruction by an encroaching wall at the Oldbury village end. In spite
of many informal and formal reports to the authority by myself and others
over many years or even decades, this illegal encroachment of the Queens
highway has been allowed to persist.
I trust that you will now invoke whatever internal procedures are necessary
to pursue this matter leading to the eventual removal of the said
obstruction. If this is not done I would like to know precisely what the
reasons are for the denial that it is an obstruction and why you believe
the authority cannot enforce the law. If I am not satisfied with this, I
may wish to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman.
I have enclosed six photographs taken on the 24 May 1996 to illustrate my
case.
Photo 1 view from the Oldbury village end of obstructing wall
Photo 2 view towards village looking at the wall from the byway
Photo 3 the correct full width of byway some 20 metres west from
obstructing wall
Photo 4 gullied section out of repair looking downhill, east, referred to
in the HA80 s56 notice
Photo 5 as photo 4 but looking uphill to the west
Photo 6 section in good repair at the top of Oldbury Hill. Note NO
surface damage.
I await you reply.
Yours sincerely
S.J.Neville
National Rights of Way Officer
----------
> From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
> To: Peter Bradley <hm50@dial.pipex.com>
[ truncated by list-digester (was 61 lines)]
> BOATs, I don't think that is what was intended by the YDNP.
> Bye for now
> Brian
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 15:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: .tif
Hi gang
Loverly picture but mine has a little white arrow on it - ooooh it moves!!
JPG for me please - and on request if that OK with you. I had a #180 phone
bill last quarter and she who earns the dosh was not pleased.
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 16:31:56 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Dangerous walks
> than the footpaths but lobbying Channel 4 seems like a good idea.
Perhaps we should all lobby and say how bad the obstructions, and lost,
overgrown lanes are, and stress that as only 2% of RoW have vehicular
rights, lack of damage contrary to the popular press, they should be
protected ? Enough people say it, they might take notice?
Chris
PS Got an address for ch 4?
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 16:31:58 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: CLA success
Hi all,
Having reported a CLA member recently for putting a 5ft gate on a UCR, (the
HA did nothing when reported to them) the CLA got him to change it to a
10ft gate 2 weeks ago.
I did not want it to seem a waste of his time, so we used it today. Was he
mad. Spitting feathers. Opened the gate for us though, and did not try to
obstruct. We had done some clearance, so we were first for a few years to
use it. Damn good job done.
His language was less than gentlemany as he suggested we went off to play
elsewhere. (3 vehs only. Dry, no marks, slow & considerate etc. I think
Brian will make a complaint to CLA about his language, and in front of his
14 year old son to.
This chap has a very short memory, when we first visited it 2months ago he
said there was no UCR there. It was only 18 months earlier he had failed
with a 116 to close it.
Anyway all I wanted to say is the CLA hotline can work IF it is a CLA
member obstructing.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Stephen Neville" <steve@wcceh.gov.uk>
Subject: TIFs and GIFs
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 21:27:22 +0100
To some that hath it shall be given ....
to those that hath Compuserve it shall not.
Some of you seemed to receive the attached TIF OK and other did not.
It seems the gist is to keep the file smallish <100K and to use JPG or GIF;
probably the former.
It was just that the scanner at work is set up to save TIFs.
I propose a rule on attachments. Send only JPGs or GIFs and keep them
smallish in size. Thoughts?
Steve N
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 07:03:48 +0100
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: obstructions-again
In message <199704041947_MC2-13A0-2CF3@compuserve.com>, Chris Marsden
<Byway@compuserve.com> writes
>Chris.
Can you not apply to the magistrates'court and fine them, this would set
out the situation very clearly?
The action is set out in the Blue Book (Rights Of Way a guide to law and
practice, by the OSS, I can give you details of were to get a copy.)
Bye for now
Brian
------------------------------
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 20:46:14 +0000
From: Peter Bradley <hm50@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Tiffs
Chris Marsden wrote:
> Peter, Steve,
> For my pennyworth, I believe Compuserve can not presently send/recieve
[ truncated by list-digester (was 7 lines)]
> the sender will get it all back again, as well as their own copy. Small
> files are OK, ................. <snipped>
Netscape should decode jpegs and gifs. Are you Compuservers using NS ?
The same file, converted to jpeg with 50% compression, was 40.91k.
If anybody attaches a picture, (which could be highly relevant), might
I suggest that they use jpeg with a high compression level. Otherwise
I am all for it.
If anyone wants to see the original, in it's uncompressed glory, then
that could be personally requested.
Peter B
------------------------------
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:01:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: obstructions-again, UCR=RoW
Who says UCRs are not RoW?
For the avoidance of doubt, and for Chris at his H&W meeting, please note
that the term Right of Way is not restricted to what is on the DM. All
highways are rights of way, it is only because they are that anyone can use
them. The distinction drawn by many in RoW work is fallacious, but arises
because HAs have (cleverly) given the DM stuff to another department.
Originally this was called the Footpaths Dept, dealt with by a Footpaths
Officer, who had a Footpaths Map. Eventually after a lot of wingeing by me
and others (at the Ridgeway Inquiry etc) that it wasn't just about sodding
footpaths, the alternative term RoW was used.
There simply isn't a sensible term for 'what is on the DM'. They are RoW but
so is the A5, and they are not in fact Definitive Ways (ie they are not
definitive in the sense of that's all there is, or that is the end of the
matter), so we are stiuck with another nonsense. Mostly it only bothers
pedants like me, but sometimes it is wheeled out as yet another reason not to
be helpful to us.
Chris, at the meeting you could remind them that RoW covers all highways, but
what they mean is 'those routes dealt with by the RoW Dept as opposed to the
tarmac dept'. Remind them that as users we are concerned with both, as we pay
taxes for both, the law treats them both identically, the CC claims for both
from the Treasury, and has the duty to assert and protect your rights on
both, so if there are recreational vehicular routes not covered by those
officers at the meeting WHY NOT? Which meeting will they be covered at? Why
have two? Divide and rule, or what?
Hope this helps
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:01:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Oldbury, obstructions
Getting something done about CCs and CCs who ifgnore obstructions
It should be possible for somebody to put together a dossier of examples,
each including a copy of the DM concerned and a picture like the TIF (which
came out smashing for me in aol), and knock together a booklet. Or perhaps a
LARA Calendar for 1998, to be sent to each county council cheif executive and
chief of police foc, along with one to the DoE, DoT, etc. Names should be
named, with grid references, county council officials, police stations, who
reported to and when, and what happened if anything. In black and white to
keep printing costs down it should not cost a fortune, and might just cause
enough red faces to see some action. The last thing a chief constable wants
is for all his chums on ACPO to know that he has failed in his duty. Ditto
the County Surveyors Society.
Any thoughts on how it might backfire (etc), anyone?
And if not LARA, then perhaps The Abatement Society (Patron, Rebecca)
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:01:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Tiffs
As intimated, AOL delivered the tiff file to me ok, and Photo-finish read it,
so they all should. Downloading at 28000 wossnames took about a minute and a
quarter. Aol treated it as a separate file to the text which arrived
normally, and I loaded a graphics prog to read it.
I use tiffs, and pcx files, regularly, but I do not know how aol will cope
with jpeg etc. I wonder if the best way round the compuserve problem is to
use a PostScript file, which is ascii anyway. But not everyone uses
PostScript (and I suspect such files are much bigger and so more
time-consuming.
I wish I knew a bit more about all this graphics stuff. Experts, please come
forward. I will give you two hours of RoW training for one hour of graphics
formats. What do you mean you don't want to know about RoW, of course you do.
It should be compulsory...
However, I was not impressed by the title of the message. 'No title' is of
little assistance in knowing what to delete when I have a clear-out, or in
finding what I need should I wish to refresh my memory over some issue. And I
cannot find a way in aol to alter the title of received stuff. I notice that
one reply to 'No Title' was 'Re: '. Ho hum.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: PI - Candovers
In a message dated 6-4-97 19:34:35, Tilbo@aol.com writes:
>On a different tack I have great pleasure in relating that I lead 8 TRF
>members past Mrs Mills front door today and heard not a squeek.
Two possible reasons:
i. She was on the phone to Mrs Masters and could not get a word in never mind
listen to you lot, or
ii. She was away having her transport put through the MoT test. The new test
for broomsticks came in on April 1 this year (at the same time as black
pointy hats were made compulsory).
Cheers, tim.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:35:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: obstructions-again, court problems
One problem is in identifying the person who actually put the obstruction in
place. Unless you have reliable witnesses to the operation, or a witnessed
confession, I do not know how you might get round this one.
It amazes me, sometimes, that the law gives us powers in HA80 s56 to get put
right a road which is difficult to use (because out of repair), but no
similar power to get put right a road which is impossible to use (because
obstructed). Perhaps a change in the law to introduce such a power would be
the declared purpose of the Calendar idea I just posted. Just rubbing those
responsible's noses in it would be nice, but could be seen as petulant, I
suppose.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 00:45:20 +0100
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: obstructions-again
In message <199704051707_MC2-13D0-950F@compuserve.com>
Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com> writes:
> The bad news is that the last Ch4 way at Rock *is* in H&W, so they are
> already "as featured on TV".
[ truncated by list-digester (was 7 lines)]
> the problem, UCRs are unknown, and they can close them down as they are
> unused because of it.
I thought UCR's had higher rights than BOATs and RUPPs??
> > Also, I take it this road couldn't have been walked either??
> Yes it was pefectly OK for walkers, the bollards etc. were a technical
> obstruction only
Rats ;-)
> One of the things that is so interesting about RoW work is that each
> problem is so different, they all need tackling differently, what works in
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
> ways, (mainly vehicular), it seemed pretty gloomy for the public when a
> Scottish L/O blocks a way. I will not be moving N of the border till you
> have some RoWs ;-)
We unfortunately didn't have the Inclosure Award system in Scotland.
Thus no designated footpaths and as a result I suspect, the lack of
definitive maps. The only area in Scotland which I know to have
anything close to a definitive map is the old Fife Region. They won't
let anyone see it as a rule, but there are ways....
The section on Scotland in D Walks was not quite as factualy based as
I suspect the English areas section was. This is partly because of the
relative lack of knowledge with regard to the Scottish Common Law
system as it relates to Rights of Way, and also because it would have
taken far too long to even cover the differences in law wthout the finer
points of RoW in Scotland itself.
In fact however, there is a stated case for pedestrian rights of way -
which led in turn to the creation of the Scottish Rights of Way Society
back in 1880ish. This was a footpath through Glen Tilt - a long
established route, which the landowner wanted to keep private.
The stated case for that path did much to create the "right to roam"
which is widely available throughout Scotland. As a result there is
no formal law of trespass in Scotland for pedestrians - unless they
"encamp on any ground, damage any crop or light fires on any land".
Of course there are still a few statutory ones like walking on the railway,
etc.
As far as Dannet wire goes, there has been one stated case of which I
have personal knowledge in which a landowner was found culpable
for placing this wire on the ground, within his own land, where a
person exercising an established and signed right of way, was injured.
This case stated that such wire, whilst not illegal in itself, was sited in
such a manner that it was reasonable to expect that someone going
about their lawful occasions by exercising legal RoW rights
could be injured, and that the act of placing it on the ground was
so reckless that it amounted to criminality. The charge was one of
reckless endangerment (Common Law) and the L/O was fined the
princely sum of 150. However, he was required to relocate the wire
- which he did, by putting it atop a 6 foot fence.
Don't worry, we've got loads of RoW, its just a matter of finding
them all, and getting some background evidence to substantiate
the vehicular rights....leave it with me, its an ongoing process ;-)
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 21 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 20 lines 953 [forwarded 100 whitespace 226]
Output: lines 748 [content 509 forwarded 29 (cut 71) whitespace 213]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970407 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]