[ First Message | | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 08:46:47 +0000
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
In message <bulk.22182.19990213151050@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Peter
BRADLEY <pbrad@dial.pipex.com> writes
>showing the "Three Peaks" as Whernside, Ingleborough, and a large
>featureless area next to Horton in Ribblesdale?
I would think that would suit or Mr Fenton!!!!
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 08:08:04 -0500
Subject: Re: E5221, OSS response to Warks.
> > the proposal is an attempt to enhance the
> >value and private amenity of a gentrified rural habitation.
> Luvly turn of phrase.
> I can almost picture the idylic scene ... simply sooper hice, and one's
own
> praevate eauld lane leading down to a darling little stritch of river.
> I can almost picture the idylic scene ... simply sooper hice, and one's
Note the similarity to my letter of 19/1/99, and I think they were both
written idependently:-
"If this road were to be closed, a little bit of rare if not unique
river-bed road would be lost. Whilst some think they can improve their
small corner of Olde England by tarting up an old property and making an
historic road into a modern cul-de-sac, one would hope the Council, and if
not the court will instruct you to, assert and protect ancient highway
rights, thereby preserving our real heritage."
I have sent them another letter since their threatening "confirm
applications are withdrawn in 7days or else" letter to me, and about to
send another asking for a reply, and their performance target. You recall
the symbol of the Bear on the top of their letter heading and county signs?
I an NOT Bear-baiting, but I could.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 08:08:05 -0500
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
> On Blubberhouse Moor they have shown only one route and that one is
> blocked by a 5ft gate but there are another 8 or 10 roads on the moor
> that they have missed of completely.
> OS map sheet 104.
And can you confirm those other 8 or 10 ARE on current LoS, and are NOT
already shown as fp or bw etc?
sorry to be pedantic, but must be sure we are right before jumping in....
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 08:08:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Somme geology was Re: Independent, Sat
> Dear Puzzled,
> The bridleway in question is the one which ones along the valley floor,
> about 20 metres downslope of the worst part of the Newbury Somme. It is
> marked on my current OS map as a RUPP, but was marked as a bridleway on
the
> ground. It joins Old Street at the western end of the mudbath (all we
need
> now is some ladies to wrestle....) and runs to the south of Old Street
> towards the east.
> about 20 metres downslope of the worst part of the Newbury Somme. It is
Dear Respondent to Puzzled.
The OS have recently started a system called the National Grid, which
allows one to specify references to locate quickly and easily any location
in the UK!
What is marked on the ground and what is on the DM or LoS have no
correlation in practice. Many examples of under-signing can be cited. I am
not aware of ANY over-signing.
You refer to the Somme and mudbath, without any explanation of the
phenomena. It is fact caused by rain and 4x4 - TRACTORS. Please don't
ever leave our avid reader in any possible doubt. Even the highest
profile 4x4 wrecked lane in the Independent last Sat has been exposed as a
complete sham and a fake. gleam have yet again been shown to be the
contemptible liars that they are.
Yours,
Enlightened.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:25:20 +0000
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
In message <bulk.5770.19990214050834@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Chris Marsden
<Byway@compuserve.com> writes
>And can you confirm those other 8 or 10 ARE on current LoS, and are NOT
>already shown as fp or bw etc?
Yes very sure, I can give you the road numbers and the map references
from the list of streets, I have all the 500 or so roads in North
Yorkshire now on a spreadsheet.
The Council officers are not best pleased I bothered to spend 2.5 days
in their office extracting all the information and then putting it on to
a spreadsheet, I have sent them a provisional copy but without the route
lengths shown on it so they cannot pick off all the long ones and close
them.
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:58:33 -0000
Subject: Bryson
Anyone see Bryson on Sunday evening - road across the sands.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:52:11 +0000
Subject: Re: Somme geology was Re: Independent, Sat
> It is marked on my current OS map as a RUPP, but was marked as a bridleway on
> the
> ground.
Matt,
The DM says that this is still a RUPP. RUPP 18, Chieveley to be exact. Old
street to you and me. The top track is Oareborough Lane. The waymark post has
now been knocked over and is poking up forlornly from the mud.
Regards,
Not quite so puzzled of Newbury
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:10:59 -0000
Subject: Re: Somme geology was Re: Independent, Sat
Dear Enlightened aka CJM
>The OS have recently started a system called the National Grid, which
>allows one to specify references to locate quickly and easily any location
>in the UK!
Remarkably easy if you have the map to hand, when you've just got out of the
shower, the maps are in the car and it's pissing it down, unless you can
psychically pick up NGRs it's not that easy. Anyway, if you've got the map,
you know what I'm talking about, if you haven't NGRs aren't going to help.
If you are having difficulties, let me know and I'll dig out the NGRs from
the mail a few days ago.
>What is marked on the ground and what is on the DM or LoS have no
>correlation in practice. Many examples of under-signing can be cited. I am
>not aware of ANY over-signing.
I wasn't making an issue of the signing, correct or not, just explaining to
people looking on the map that they're looking for a RUPP symbol, not a
bridleway symbol.
>You refer to the Somme and mudbath, without any explanation of the
>phenomena.
You obviously missed the section of the Environmental Impact Assessment I'm
currently working on for the lane which I posted the other day. If so, let
me know and I'll post a copy to you for your perusal.
>It is fact caused by rain and 4x4 - TRACTORS.
Actually that's not true, rut damage by tractors and 4x4s is a symptom, the
cause is the poor drainage. Banning tractors won't cure the drainage
problem, in fact it will make it worse (see previous mail). The only
difference will be the depth of the ruts.
>Please don't ever leave our avid reader in any possible doubt.
I wasn't aware that I had.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:34:30 EST
Subject: Re: prosecutions.
In a message dated 07/02/99 23:48:14 GMT Standard Time,
doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
<< What's all this about AWDC & TRF members being prosecuted for driving on
a RUPP in Herts? It is a bit alarming. >>
Not quite. A LO is seeking an injunction requiring specified riders from using
a RUPP (on his land), along with a declaration that it is not a Veh RoW.
Sneaky, but we have it in hand.
Cheers, tim
PS back on line at last. It only took a week to sort out, and now I am an
expert at loading Win95 and partitioning and DoD size limitations etc etc.
And thanks to Bod who gave me the slack to try out a few (several) tricks wich
eventually came good.
More later.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:51:26 +0000
Subject: Maintenance
Not strictly RoW but...
I was recently asked by my farming friends about notices they have
been sent by the CC. Apparently, the CC is giving notice that they
will no longer maintain the roads to the farms.
In one case, the road in question is a dead-end (or so I am told)
serving three farms. The question was asked by farmer no. 2, i.e. in
the middle of the lane. I would have thought that the road would
have to be maintained to at least the last but one farm.
A separate farmer in the county also asked similar questions, but
the lane that goes past his farm is definitely a through route (I use
it at least once a month in my ordinary car - as part of an ordinary
journey).
All of the routes have previously been regularly maintained by the
CC (last time about 5 or 6 years ago).
Interestingly, ALL of the farms are council owned. The farmers are
paying rent on the land and the buildings to the council. (Note that
this may be the borough council rather than the CC - I need to get
more info).
Could anyone shed any light on the legality of this practice?
I shall no doubt make the appropriate complaints as soon as the
through route becomes in a poor state of repair, but I am unsure
about the dead-end.
Any comments?
P.S. Both farmers are Land Rover owners and not anti-vehicle)
Mark Smith dataIP Computer Consultants
tel. +44(0)1785 609520 fax. +44(0)1785 609521
smtp:MarkSmith@dataIP.co.uk http://www.dataIP.co.uk/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:38:51 +0000
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
>>On Blubberhouse Moor they have shown only one route and that one is
blocked by a 5ft gate but there are another 8 or 10 roads on the moor
>>that they have missed of completely.
>I thought they were cartographers whose purpose in life was to transpose
>actual features on the ground into recognisable features on a map?
Is it the physical routes themselves which are omitted from the map, or the
"other routes with public access" symbols?
Despite comments suggesting the contrary in other postings, I can't imagine
that the OS will show the "other routes with public access" information
unless they receive instructions about that from the HA. Some HAs have
been far more comprehensive about this than others: Devon springs to mind
as a good performer, with a vast number of green lanes marked up with the
green dots on the new Explorer series (see the area south of the Teign
estuary at Shaldon for example). Others seem to have passed on information
only about "selected" routes, presumably missing out the "interesting"
stuff (just as well they don't exercise the same judgement with the
definitive map?).
When I was at Surrey CC in Kingston last week, enquiring about the LoS, I
was shown the new digitised street system, which will, presently, show the
LoS information in a mapped GIS database. The database of streets compiled
by Surrey and other HAs is also being passed to the OS to create a national
database. Oddly, the clerk thought that the council would need to continue
to keep a printed LoS (ie, list, not map) because a map would not meet the
legal requirements!
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:17:18 -0000
Subject: TROs in Powys/Cerediginion
I have been asked if I can find out anything about two TROs in the West
Powys/East Ceredigion area - sorry I don't have the OS map to say which
county.
The NGRs are:
SN 808 676 to 871 635, runs along the northern shore of the Claerwen
Reservoir, and has a the number LC297 associated with it
and
SN 899 720 to 808 676, 'Monks Trod', this having the number LC299 associated
with it.
Does anyone know if these are 'real TROs', or have any other information on
them?
Thanks in advance.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:17:20 -0000
Subject: RE: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
Despite the protestations of the OS to the contrary, they still rely on an
army or people on the ground to tell them what's there. Thus one can
'invent' the fact that nice wide, well worn track over the hills is actually
the product of a few hundred sheep - BAAAAAAAAAAA.
At a local level these surveys are often done by PCCs, who select someone to
do it for them. Here its a case of t he most vocal wins. Is there a case
for getting involved in the PCC, and being a 'loud voice' for a decent and
proper survey of the Parish you live in. I'd say 'Yes', but I can guess how
long it would take to do - more than the few hours I can realistically give
a week, and I guess the same is true for most people in normal work; result
most 'walking surveys' are done by those with more time on their hands -
either the old, or those with direct, daily contact with the land - no bias
there of course.....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:42:44 EST
Subject: Aerial Photos.
Some while ago someone asked about sources for aerial photos.
Well, I've just been reading Glos. CC Archives Annual Report for 97/98 and
they mention that they've received "....a set of high-quality aerial
photographs of the county taken for the Ordnance Survey during the 1970's."
Hope that helps whoever asked.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:42:41 EST
Subject: Re: Oxfordshire vehicular RoW
Howard,
In a message dated 07/02/99 18:28:09, you wrote:
<< Does anyone out there have any info on Oxfordshire vehicular RoW
particularly UCRs. I am sure that there must be more than shown on the
current OS maps. Dual status routes don't seem to be shown at all. >>
When I paid a visit to Oxford's Highways Dept. offices a couple of years ago,
to find out about any lanes bordering Glos., they were very helpful and had a
set of combined highways and RoW maps for me to look at. They did point out
that the RoW info shown on them was not always up-to-date and that the PRoW
should also be contacted to check. Hope that helps.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 99 23:12 GMT0
Subject: Re: Lines of communication to Babtie
If the many 000s of you wish to talk to Rhoda, she is reading@babtie.com
I am sure she is willing to be inundated with lots of enquiries.......
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:14:21 -0000
Subject: Fw: motorcyclist girlfreinds
> Have a look at riders girl freinds at the WTRA web site.
> http://freespace.virgin.net/bob.mullins/wtra1.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:38:21 EST
Subject: Re: Maintenance
Mark,
In a message dated 14/02/99 21:53:35, you wrote:
<< I was recently asked by my farming friends about notices they have
been sent by the CC. Apparently, the CC is giving notice that they
will no longer maintain the roads to the farms. >>
For a publicly maintained road this can be done offically by applying to the
magistrates court for a cease to maintain order - Highways Act 1980, section
47 refers. It is usually done on the quiet by no longer sending the tarmac
(and ditching and hedging) gangs out to do their jobs on that particular lane.
But as the CC have given notices to the farmers maybe they are doing it
properly - though I would suggest that in that case a sharp lookout is kept
for porcine aviators!
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:38:24 EST
Subject: Re: TROs in Powys/Cerediginion
Rob,
In a message dated 14/02/99 22:18:15, you wrote:
<< I have been asked if I can find out anything about two TROs in the West
Powys/East Ceredigion area - sorry I don't have the OS map to say which
county. The NGRs are:
SN 808 676 to 871 635, runs along the northern shore of the Claerwen
Reservoir, and has a the number LC297 associated with it
and
SN 899 720 to 808 676, 'Monks Trod', this having the number LC299 associated
with it.
Does anyone know if these are 'real TROs', or have any other information on
them? >>
There is no TRO on the Claerwen Track as far as I know. This is BOAT LC299 in
Powys, and a 'White Road' in Ceredigion (a court case overturned a PI to BOAT
decision a couple of years ago, so it sits in limbo still).
Monks Trod still has, as far as I know, a TRO banning vehicles with 4 or more
wheels. An extension of this covering all vehicles has been mooted in the past
year or so but I've heard nothing on this lately. Monks Trod is U1357 in
Ceredigion (or it was under Dyfed's aegis - they may have reinvented the road
numbering system since) and BOAT LC296 in Powys.
LC297 is an ex-RUPP reclassified as Bridleway, under the '68 Act suitability
clause I understand (as were many of Radnor's RUPPs), from SN894686 to 929699
- but dual-status (U1551) as far as the ford at 903691.
Hope that helps.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:26:26 -0500
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
> Yes very sure, I can give you the road numbers and the map references
> from the list of streets, I have all the 500 or so roads in North
> Yorkshire now on a spreadsheet.
> The Council officers are not best pleased I bothered to spend 2.5 days
> in their office extracting all the information and then putting it on to
> a spreadsheet, I have sent them a provisional copy but without the route
> lengths shown on it so they cannot pick off all the long ones and close
[ truncated by list-digester (was 11 lines)]
> lengths shown on it so they cannot pick off all the long ones and close
> them.
That's 500 unsealed roads? Excellent job. Give them something to cheer
them up. They will now have to TRO the lot. Put them on a spread sheet and
stick that before the councillors :-)
Have you billed them for the 2.5 days?
Hereford has 125 Unsealed, (51 NTR) = 70.3 Km I was given the printout for
those. Perhaps you don't complain enough ;-)
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:33:14 -0000
Subject: Re: motorcyclist girlfreinds
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 21 lines 0 [forwarded 68 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 625 [content 469 forwarded 65 (cut 3) whitespace 0]
[ First | | <- Digest 990215 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]