[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 05:14:32 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: UCRs
> Currently with time on my hands, I have spent the last couple of days
down at
> the Surrey Archives dept. I found the Schedule of Unclassified Roads
prepared
> under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935 Section 2. This
gives the
> proposed widths for Unclassified County Roads in Surrey and was completed
in
> 1935.
> Unfortunately there is no map with it ( the schedules are appendices to
what I
> assume was the map) and C,D and E class roads are recorded together with
the
> road name if known, a description of start and end points, and the
proposed
> width. Sometimes width is just recorded as 'no change'.
> I have trawled through two of the seven sections of it, finding what
lanes each
> entry relates to (not easy as many roads have changed name) and have
found, so
> far, about twenty 'new' potential UCRs.
> Some of these do not appear on the Highways dept. list of streets????
An interesting posting, I am pleased you put it on the list, because this
is exactly what I did two weeks ago at the Div engineers office. (See my
posting then) The HA do not have the 1935 or 1929 handover maps.(Assession
maps he called them) Nor do the records office. They are fascinating
valuable maps, one district had a handrawn map! He also had a Leominster
newspaper cutting of 9/7/1935 reproducing a list of all publically
maintainable roads where ribbon developemnet was to be restricted.
Our roads have had 4 sets of numbers over the years. There has never been
any cross reference list made up. There are three maps, the 1935 road
numbers not having ever had a map. They are identifiable by their name and
from/to and reference to the earlier and later road lists. It is a slow
job. I reckon I identified about 5 new roads from this so far, two being
interesting fords through the Wye (Snorkels only) but there are other
divisions I have not yet looked at, and probably will not be able to
through lack of resources.
These should be on the list of streets, and as Tim said you could write to
them and ask them to add them as they were missed off.
> I will take the list of suspects up to highways tomorrow to see how many
are
> recorded. The lanes that they do know about have got different numbers
that in
> this list so I will get clarification on this as well.
> Some of these do not appear on the Highways dept. list of streets????
You may not get a lot of assistance, but it is worth a try.
> Do I then have to double check each route on the Tithe/Finance/Enclosure
maps as
> well?
I would think not.
> Oh also I was in Highways last week and one of them, possibly concerned
> Some of these do not appear on the Highways dept. list of streets????
at the
> recent upsurge in interest in UCRs (Dale has been hassling them as well
:-).
> said that inclusion in the LoS was not definitely a guarantee of vehicle
> rights!!!!!.
I think this is getting a bit tedious. Lets all assume on the strength of
the Brian Lewis letter and other facts that they do, until they can prove
they dont.
> He suggested that rights have to be proved through use.
So whats new. Use it.
> He was
> very friendly and helpful and even showed me the correct route of a
little known
> UCR right over the top of a local NT beauty spot. I pointed out the DoE
report,
> etc. But in reality although he knew we were right he couldn't
officially say
> it as it were.
> He showed me your letter Dale and said he was working out how to reply,
so
> please let me know when you get it.
> Back to the NT beauty spot. I know that attempts to use this lane would
result
> in an absolute outcry with the National Trust, Media, Councillors etc, so
what
> would be the correct course of action here? Could I write to the NT and
tell
> them that although I know I have the right to use this lane, I am
prepared not
> to so long as they do not apply for 116 through lack of use. Any ideas?
> Back to the NT beauty spot. I know that attempts to use this lane would
I have an identical situation with a local NT castle. A 19C diversion
order on the route proved it was a highway and it said "to XYZ". It is a
little uncertain where it goes in one place, it may be a common which could
complicate things, and another part is a permissive footpath just 6ft wide
to an Iron Age Hill Fort. I dont think there would be too much problem in
establishing it. But I know that it would result in our counties first TRO
as soon as they realised what it was.
Here I am going to use it occasionally, and hope. When I drove it before
no one challenged me, as no one would have ever thought it was drivable or
would have the nerve to drive it.
There are a few time when this may be the only policy?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 05:14:42 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Obstructions revisited.
> like build bigger barriers, but that is the challenge. If they gave up,
> what would we think of them.
There comes a time when it is a test of strength and determination. The
last small bollard I removed at U73019 Roman Road Hereford was steel filled
with concrete. With a snatch block and a rear anchor I reckon I just
managed it with a little over 20,000 pull on the top of it. It was
replaced within a week with one far far bigger. About 12" diam, 1/4"
steel about 5ft deep into concrete.
So when I tried to KERR out a concrete bollard next to it I had to give up
and was just going to get the chainsaw out to cut a tree down. I was then
challenged by this dickhead from Amey Roadstone Construction. It was almost
certainly them that stuck it in. They have some VERY big plant at the
concrete works nearby. Well being alone, and him having all his mates
nearby, and having reported a couple of previous incidents to the Police at
this location, I thought digression was the better part of valour. (I must
ask Tim Duncan along next time with his Get out of Gaol Free Card).
So this is one for the legal lads to sort out. I am writing tomorrow to CC
solicitor saying when can I expect a reply to my last two letters, and is
there any reason why I should not lay a complaint before a magistrate in
accordance with the 1980 HA S150 (2), (?) in not less than 14 days.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 05:14:47 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Who's here
Richard asked:
> How do I go about finding out who is on the RoW list?
Send a message to Majordomo@Land-Rover.Team.Net as usual, ie as for
subscribe unsubscribe etc but just say in message:
who row
using the same address that you first used to subscribe with. Don has a
list of many names to go with the addresses.
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: owl@owlsnest.com
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 03:34:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Is Your Web Site A Secret?
Is your web site the best kept secret on the Internet?
We'll promote it to 50 search engines and indexes for $85
and complete the job in 2 business days. Satisfaction is
guaranteed!
If you have a great product, but are not getting many inquiries from
your Web site, you may not be adequately listed on the Web's search
engines and indexes.
Millions of viewers daily use these facilities to find the products
and services they are looking for. But if your site is not listed, no
one will see it.
Listings on most of these services are free. However, locating and
filling out the forms required to get a listing can take several days,
and most people just don't have the time to do it.
That is why we offer a web site promotion service.
WHAT'S THE DEAL?
We will submit your site to 50 indexes and search engines for $85. We
will accept the return of this E-mail, with the form below filled out,
as an order. We will bill you upon completion of the promotion. Our
terms are net 15 days from date of invoice. Satisfaction guaranteed!
HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE?
Generally, we complete the submissions within 48 hours of
receiving your order. It can take any individual search engine or
index up to three weeks to process your submission, although most are
much faster.
WHAT SEARCH ENGINES AND INDEXES ARE INCLUDED IN THE
PROMOTION?
The list changes from time to time. This is our current list:
Abaweb!, Alta Vista, Been There, BizWeb, Central Source Yellow Pages,
Enterpreneurs on the Web, Excite, Four11, Galaxy, I-Network I-Systems
Spiral Business Directory, I-World Web Pointer, Infoseek, Inktomi,
Innovator's Network Yellow Pages, Internet Mall, Jayde Online Directory,
Jumpcity, Jumper Hot Links, Linkmaster, Lycos, Magellan, Mega Mall,
Net-Happenings, Net Navigator, Net Mall, NTG's List, NYNEX Big Yellow,
One World Plaza, OnLine's WWWeb Index, Rex, Starting Point, Truenorth,
URL Tree, Virtual Lynx, Web Point, WebCentral, Web Venture Hotlist,
Webcrawler, Websurf, Win Mag/NetGuide Hotspots, WhatUSeek, Worldwide
Announce Archive, WWW Business Yellow Pages, World Wide Yellow Pages,
WWW Worm, YelloWWWeb.
HOW WILL I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE PROMOTED MY SITE?
When we have completed the promotion, we will send you an HTML
file as an attachment to your E-mail bill. Save this file to your
disk, and view it through your Web browser. It provides links to the
search engine we submitted your site to, plus any comments we received
from them when we did it.
ARE THERE ANY GUARANTEES?
We do not require prepayment. Your satisfaction is guaranteed or
you don't pay the bill.
WHO IS OWL'S EYE PRODUCTIONS?
We are a web site promotion company located at:
Owl's Eye Productions, Inc.
260 E. Main Street
Brewster, NY 10509
Phone: (914) 278-4933
Fax: (914) 278-4507
Email: owl@owlsnest.com
HOW DO I ORDER?
The easiest way to order is by e-mail. Just hit the REPLY button on
your e-mail program and fill out the following information. (This
information will be posted to the search engines/indexes):
Your name:
Company Name:
Address:
City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email address:
URL: http://
Site Title:
Description (about 25 words):
Key words (maximum of 25, in descending order of importance):
Proofs (Where shall we e-mail proofs):
If billing a different address, please complete the following:
Addressee:
Company Name:
Address:
City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email address:
We will bill via Email. (7519)
Terms: By returning this document via Email, you agree as follows:
You have the authority to purchase this service on behalf of your
company. Terms are net 15 days. Accounts sent to collections will
be liable for collection costs. You agree to protect and indemnify
Owl's Eye Productions, Inc. in any claim for libel, copyright
violations, plagiarism, or privacy and other suits or claims based on
the content or subject matter of your site.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
When we receive your order, we will input the information into
our system, and send you a proof.
After we process any corrections, we will run your promotion, capturing
any comments from search engines as we go. We will incorporate these
into an HTML-formatted report to you, which we will attach to
your bill.
===Web Promotions=====Press Releases=====Link Exchanges=========
Owl's Eye Productions, Inc.
260 E. Main Street
Brewster, NY 10509
Ph: 914-278-4933 Fx: 914-278-4507 E-mail: owlseye@owlsnest.com
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:35:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: UCRs
Richard,
They almost certainly used the 2nd. or 3rd. edition County series
6 inch maps as their base maps so it may well help you in identifying them by
the name given if you look at any such copies of these maps that the Records
Office has.
USE IT OR LOOSE IT!!! If your worried about how obtrusive your use by 4fwd
might be, tell the local TRF. I'm forwarding your e-mail to Bob Williams of
Thames Valley TRF anyway.
Regards
Charlie Morriss.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:36:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: AOL RoW Forum.
Having made myself another alias/e-mail name of CEMorriss ( Charlitrf is a
bit of a giveaway!) I've just had the following from AOL admin in reply to a
suggestion of mine that they set up a RoW forum in their ClubsGB area - to be
an open, public area for ALL ( i.e. Ramblers, horsy types, mountain-bikers,
and any others we wouldn't wish to invite onto this means) with questions or
an interest in RoW. I reckon that it could be useful source of information
and contact, as well as education, with/for all those who might look askance
at our version of the practice:
Subj: Re: Life Main Screen Feedback
Date: 20/05/97 11:43:27
From: ClubsGB
To: CEMorriss
Hi,
Thanks for writing with your suggestions. If you would like to send us a
brief plan of what would be contained in a rights of way forum and how it
would work, we'd be more than glad to look over your suggestions at a future
planning meeting. Thanks again for your interest,
Regards,
ClubsGB
Anyone with suggestions or comments for a reply from me to AOL please let me
have them.
Charlie Morriss
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 10:36:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: S116 on Byways @ Llandovery, Carm.
Andy,
I had, and did give the letters as evidence, but they chose to not
take them into account. I've just had their written reasons this morning from
the Clerk and my letters about the obstructions are not mentioned. Appealing
is all very well in theory - but where do the resources come from to back it
up? Anyway my objection was not purely done to prevent what happened
happening - it was to give me some practice on a case we could afford to
loose (for when I might have to fight one we really don't want to let go),
and to make Carm. CC get it's act together, take me (and other Veh. RoW
users) seriously and generally take more care in future. The lessons I learnt
were valuable and (as your e-mail iterated) still coming in.
Regards
Charlie Morriss
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 16:15:33 +0100
From: William Richards <bigbill@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: AOL RoW Forum.
In message <970521103423_352909040@emout02.mail.aol.com>
Charlietrf@aol.com writes:
> Anyone with suggestions or comments for a reply from me to AOL please let me
> have them.
How (as a non AOL member) would we access this ?
Would a USENET news group be any good ?
I have just got onto my ISP to find out how to start one.
Name : Bill Richards
Location : Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.
E-mail : bigbill@zetnet.co.uk
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 16:54:33 +0100
From: William Richards <bigbill@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: AOL RoW Forum.
> How (as a non AOL member) would we access this ?
> Would a USENET news group be any good ?
> I have just got onto my ISP to find out how to start one.
I got a reply included was this list
uk.rec.cars.4x4
uk.rec.walking
uk.rec.equestrian
uk.politics.environment
If that interests any one.
Im going to add them to my list and see what they`re like.
> Name : Bill Richards
> Location : Cheltenham, Gloucestershire.
> E-mail : bigbill@zetnet.co.uk
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Seymour, Gareth" <GSeymour@mp.sihe.ac.uk>
Subject: Sarn Helen
Date: Wed, 21 May 97 10:17:00 PDT
Just a little article from the Western mail dated 20/5/97 to cheer you all
up. The only area that I would say could be impassable is where the forestry
have been cutting across the roman road leaving behind ruts, mud and
branches. Tried speaking to Mark Chapman at Powys but he is out for the day.
I am going to try and speak to Clive Williams later today and will ring Bill
Kershaw tonight. I will pass on any other news.
Gareth
Glamorgan Offroad club
SARN HELEN ROUTE :Meeting may consider restricting the right of four-wheel
drive vehicles+ drivers.
+Vandals are destroying Roman Road+
An ancient Roman route which has run between Neath and south of the Brecon
Beacons National Park for over 2,000 years is being destroyed by "Vandals"
in four wheel drive vehicles, the chairman of the National Parks Authority
has claimed.
Gwyn Gwillim made his comments ahead of a meeting today between
rights-of-way officers from the authority, Powys CC and Neath and Port
Talbot CC. Concern amongst Park Wardens, land owners and ramblers has been
growing over the last few months as parts of the Sarn Helen road, which
begins at Aberdulais and finishes at Ystradfellte, have become impassable
through repeated use from off-road vehicles.
Rights of way officers will look at restricting vehicle and motorbike use on
the road. At present all types of vehicle are allowed to us the road.
Mr. Gwillim said "If the National Park authority allowed a 200yr old church
to be knocked down, there would be uproar. But this road which has been
there since before William the Conqueror is being systematically destroyed
and we have to do something about it. These drivers may think it is fun to
use these roads but we don+t think it+s very funny that they are destroying
our heritage. They are vandals".
David Morgan a NP warden in whose area Sarn Helen lies, said that while
vehicles had a right to use the road they were making it impassable for
walkers, cyclists and horse riders who also have a right to travel along it.
"Their right is contravening the rights of others, the road is absolutely
decimated in places".
Eddy Wood+s farmyard is used by drivers to get to Sarn Helen. Over the
weekend, about 6 vehicles passed by his yard, although he said there have
been considerably more in the past. "They are not doing us any harm, but the
Roman Road is getting busted up badly. Somebody will break their neck in
there one day".
Chris Playford, volunteer Brecon Beacons paths officer for the Ramblers
Assoc. said Sarn Helen will also be raised today at a meeting of the access
advisory group, a steering committee of Park users including walkers and
off-road drivers.
"A lot of ramblers are very concerned about Sarn Helen. Its not nice for
walkers to pick their way over an eroded route and also have to step out of
the way for motorbikes and cars. Ramblers are beginning to find other paths,
even though the Roman road is popular".
Problems on Sarn Helen in the Neath Port Talbot area led to the road being
closed for 18 months while essential repairs were carried out. Now a Traffic
Regulation Order prevents vehicles using the route between December and
March. "People were coming in the winter and using it as a test of skills
and therefore exceeding there by-law rights. They were using it more in the
winter than in the summer. We wanted to keep its character as a superb
ancient highway without eroding its public rights. Now it+s a rough and
ready mountain road, not a test of skill, " said Clive Williams, a R.O.W.
officer in Neath and Port Talbot.
Bill Kershaw, chairman of the Forum for Motorised Sport and member of the
Land Access and Recreation association, has been riding motorbikes on Sarn
Helen for 40 years. While he is critical of "cowboys who give off-road
drivers a bad name he also points out that a lot of the present problems
with the Roman road have come about through lack of maintenance, problems
that were resolved in Neath Port Talbot while the road was closed. "No route
will stand up to continuos use without maintenance. Sarn Helen has not been
abused to the degree people would have us believe.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 20:28:00 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Sarn Helen
I believe there are some rights on both sides. It is a well known BOAT
shown on the map. It does have more than its fair share of use. How much
do we expect to be done in the way of repairs for recreational users? Is
vehicular use making it difficult for other users? If it is being regarded
as a "challenge" then it will certainly qualify quite justifiably for a TRO
*if* that will prevent the problems. There is quite a market in "Off
Road courses", Ground anchors, winches, ladders, mainly used by a few
macho types on public roads "for a bit of fun".
This should not happen to ancient tracks. I suggest this type of use can
alter the nature of a road if it goes on for a few years, to a greater
extent than the thousands of years of carts and horses that made the route.
But on the other side, lack of any maintenance, which is what most tracks
get, ploughing of the firm surface, forestry operation causing havoc to the
surface these are the ONLY VANDALS that effectively ruin most tracks. For
every track you can show me that has been damaged by rec use I reckon I can
show you a thousand that have been LOST or damaged by ploughing, forestry,
agrig. or lack of use. I have not seen a single route that has been lost
through purely rec use, - with perhaps 1/2 doz which could arguably be said
to be largely rec use. Where there are ruts 12" wide 12" deep, it does not
take many stones to fill them up to only 2 - 3 " deep. A stitch in time.
This is what has been done for thousands of years, except for the last 50
years or so.
These so called professionals do not know about the countless green lanes
that are no longer there or invisible through lack of use. Promotion of
all routes may be an answer, or it might spread the problem to all routes.
It is such a pity these professional dickheads do not look at the real
problems, read the reports, and promote an open minded policy free from
their anti vehicle bias.
As Gareth has said the only bad section is where the Forestry had churned
it up to start with.
But equally unacceptable (in my view) is the deliberate use during the
worst weather *just* because it gets quite difficult, regardless of whether
such use might cause permanent damage or necessitate repairs. It does
happen, but a *very* small minority of instances. The antis seize on
this, effecting undamaged routes everywhere, by this publicity totally at
odds with the facts.
What is the answer? meeting these people on site to see if there is some
common ground? I note they say restrict use. Is this an excuse for an all
out ban or an attempt to reduce use at the worst times? Has V R been
tried, how well would V R work, and would users accept it? If not V R,
then TRO for *only* perhaps 3 months a year, and minimal and *traditional*
maintenance (financed by the forestry when appropriate)?
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 11 lines 692 [forwarded 60 whitespace 168]
Output: lines 668 [content 382 forwarded 60 (cut 0) whitespace 155]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970522 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]