[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:04:31 +0000
Subject: not RoW
Not RoW related, but an interesting site!
http://www.oneworld.org/tlio/index.html
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:40:36 EST
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
In a message dated 19.02.99 13:58:15 GMT Standard Time, gam85@dial.pipex.com
writes:
<< how to protect their copyright and sod the customer. >>
Exactly.
It is very interesting to find the same frustrations in an authority as are
expressed by users. The OS seem to be a law unto themselves, overbearing when
it suits them, in a one sided sort of process. They are over-rigorous about
copyright (even to the extent of bearing down on legal copying for legal
processes) but extremely un-rigorous when it comes to public rights (eg The No
evidemnce of RoW clause) and getting the information accurate (as Howard has
clarified).
One problem is surely that the users meet the OS via the CCPR, and few user
groups are really active in that forum. Meanwhile other meetings with OS and
authorities take place, and while I cannot comment on how cosy or otherwise
they might be, there is every chance - to give one example only - that while
users are told that highway details are administered by authorities,
authorities are told that very few users are interested in highway details.
How do we get round this problem? The OS could be a wonderful service for us
all, but at the moment it is failing all of us.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:40:38 EST
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
In a message dated 19.02.99 20:57:44 GMT Standard Time, gam85@dial.pipex.com
writes:
<< On the question of whinging about resources
come in to the real world the reality is that there is simply not enough
resources to deliver - thats not a whinge but a statement of fact and a
reality which no amount of HA knocking will resolve!
>>
In my view, boith Richard H and Howard D are right (Champion whingers, and,
there is no money). As we all know, user groups have no money either, so the
LO, HA and us have got that in common. That is why we should all - yes all -
be working together to benefit all. We all - all 3 of us - need money to
defend ourselves against unhelpful others, in the adversarial processes we are
lumbered with. So why do we not all seek to remove the need to spend the
'defensive' part of of our budgets?
In a way, we are all 3 in the same lifeboat, and we all think land is in a
different direction. So we argue about who should be rowing, and whose oars
are longest, as the boat drifts further from all land...
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:40:44 EST
Subject: Re: bewdley/stourport bywayDevil's S TRO
In a message dated 19.02.99 23:08:42 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< NO prosecution can be
brought under the Road Traffic Act for riding such a motorcycle on the
highway. (This is distinct from the problem of apprehending a menouverable
machine without number plates.) Even having found the culprits a private
prosecution would have to be brought, or prosecution for infringement of a
byelaw, if any. The TRO would not have helped. >>
Perhaps you could say 'There are serious difficulties surrounding prosecution
under the RTA ...'
and for 'found the culprits' you could say 'identified ...' for clarity.
I think this proposal is wrong because (and I think CJM has identified these
reasons) -
i. they (WCC etc) have identified a problem to do with 'sport' and not sought
the advice assistance etc of the Governing Bodies (or of LARA or the CCPR or
Sports Council). So they are ignoring the free help that should be available.
ii. they have decided on a permanent TRO without considering other options
(including i).
iii. Their proposed solution (ban legal motors on the highway) will not bear
on the real problem (illegal motoring from and across the highway).
iv. They have ignored Govt advice (2/93 & MBoB).
v. Even if they do not take help from others, the means used is too over-
bearing and expensive. Clearly an experimental order would allow them to mould
the solution to fit the problem, and could easily be removed if it was
ineffective.
vi. They seem to have decided what to do far too early in the process, and are
stubbornly refusing to back pedal.
vii This is a slap in the face for users who want to help. They are likely to
get a backlash which will do their budgets (etc) no good.
What a wonderful example to us all of the real reason that HAs are strapped
for cash. They flush it away down plug-holes such as this.
Is there any sense in LARA having an annual 'prize-giving' where an award
could be made to the authority that gets it right most often, and another to
the worst cock-up of the year?
Which would have the most nominations, do you think?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:40:47 EST
Subject: Re: OS - missing white roads
In a message dated 19.02.99 23:08:51 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< Is this the sort you want? I can give you half a dozen or so on 148, Rhos
Goch Golf course (Anialated), Bank Fm, Brilley, Quebb, Hill House-a
smasher, Hillhole, Oatcroft, Rodd, Lowes Hall etc. All show nothing now,
on base map but I'm sure were shown as whites on previous maps. >>
Exactly the sort I want. One A4 sheet for each, with scanned, photocopied, etc
maps with (old) and without (new), and road number, grid refs, and dates of
maps (esp latest one).
I am sure that black & white copies will do.
As regards other 'downgraded' from double to single lines, or now shown only
in a 'definitive' symbol, they too would be relevant as long as what is
visible on the ground is more than what the map shows. There are one or two
UCRs which are hardly visible on the ground, and as they claim the black lines
show physical evidence only, we cannot ask for anything else. But these are
the ones it is most important to show as ORPAs*.
ORPA = other routes with public access, not the most helpful term, but the
best that could be agreed among the parties to OS negotiations.
Is there anyone else out there with an interest in this?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 07:40:45 EST
Subject: Re: OS Explorers (Reply it is not us!! by the HA)
In a message dated 19.02.99 23:08:42 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< All existing unsold
stock was recalled and destroyed. >>
Only true if they mean stock unsold by the OS itself. Stock unsold by
retailers, even in the middle of the problem area, remained on sale for moths
afterwards. The retailer concerned ran a pro-4x4 garage and was therefore
likely to be a calling point for BOAT-seekers wanting up to date maps.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:48:33 EST
Subject: Re: MP Bennett
In a message dated 21.02.99 06:34:05 GMT Standard Time,
winchesterld@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
<< We need one of our organisations to be as pro-active as
GLEAM. >>
Which one might that be, I wonder? Or might there be a role for the umbrella
group called LARA?. The major players in LARA RoW matters are (in alpha-order)
ACU, ARC, AWDC, MSA, TRF*. Secondary roles are played by GLASS*, and the Welsh
Motoring forum, which are not full members so do not have a vote on the
Steering Committee, although they do have influence. Those marked with * are
purely RoW clubs, with no competition interest.
If any of the major players were to suggest a more pro-active campaign, it
might move things forward. Only the members of these groups can put pressure
on them to consider this.
A few notes on the background (for GLASS members and others) -
This might seem an arcane distinction, process, etc, but it is our attempt at
democracy.
I know that some GLASS members feel that it is not right that they do not get
full 'privileges' while not being a full LARA member, but I know of no other
way that is fair. For example, if all privileges (votes, club name on
notepaper, leaflets, etc etc) were available to affiliate members, there would
be no full members, our income would drop, and we would not be able to afford
to do anything at all except perhaps meet. Exactly who gets what is a matter
of record for all groups who join (its in the Forward Plan) so what you see is
what you get. It can all be changed, though, at AGM. The next AGM is in April.
To date, there are no proposals on the table for rule changes. Each group in
LARA has a copy of the Forward Plan, which includes the constitution.
Cheers, tim Stevens
LARA mrdo
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 08:48:37 EST
Subject: Consultation from DETR and MAFF
On Saturday I received a copy of 'Rural England, a discussion document'.
Some of you may see this anyway, others who might like to comment can get a
copy, free, from -
DETR, PO Box 236, Wetherby, W Yorks LS23 7NB
tel: 0870 122 6236, fax: 0870 122 6237
(Yes, the telephone numbers are not 01- numbers.)
Or the website: www.detr.gov.uk
you can reply - with the title 'Discussion Document' - to
rural.development.detr@gtnet.gov.uk
LARA - part of the solution
Tim Stevens, mrdo.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:52:51 -0000
Subject: Re: Babtie
>To date I do not think I have a reply. NOTE THE DATE AT THE HEAD
Try 'Death By Fax Roll'!!!
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:48:45 -0000
Subject: Re: MP Bennett
>Heard the aforementioned Hon Mem on the radio yesterday, blasting on
about
>the RA's 'Right to Roam' bill. Never answered a straight question,
ignored
>polite probing with rude rebuttals......
Well I have found a 'test' lane!
A definitive bridleway in Bennett's constituency which is shown on the
LoS.
I have walked it and it 'looks' like a road and is metalled in places.
It only has two locked gates on it which is good going for this area.
Now I have to find where Tameside records are kept - not in Manchester
Record Office.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 12:41:51 -0000
Subject: Re: MP Bennett
>He has a job to do to represent his constituents IN GENERAL, and it
is
>quite possible more oppose laning, after the torrent af PR gloom is
getting
>:-(
I sent him a copy of my original letter to Manchester Metro News.
Here is is reply:
##########
Dear Mr Boddison,
I was alittle surprised by parts of your letter. First it is some time
since we looked at Leisure In the Countryside, and on that occasion, I
worked hard to see the report was fair to Lara. Obviously I make no
secret
of my support for the Ramblers,just as I make no secret of my support
for
the Labour Party. However I don't receive any financial benefit from
my
support of the Ramblers.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Bennett
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Brian Pratt" <btp@freeuk.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:39:38 -0800
Subject: Researched Lane
Hi All,
Today two of us rode trailbikes on several 'researched' lanes sourced
from the TRF. We got a lot of grief off a landowner on one of them who, as
usual, was adamant there was no vehicular rights.
Does anyone know what exactly is the historical evidence for this lane
(before I get in touch with my W.Yorkshire TRF Rep) ?
Map 98, SD 974557 to 972583, south of Cracoe, Yorkshire Dales.
Brian Pratt: GLASS(Lakes/Dales) + TRF member
Email: btp@freeuk.com
GLASS Northern Bulletin website: http://www.btp.freeuk.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:44:56 +0000
Subject: Dere Street
Hi folks,
Does anyone know what is happening to the proposals by Borders Council
to stop up this ancient highway?
Cheers,Mike.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Michael Taylor <mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:55:16 +0000
Subject: OS EXPLORER
Hi folks,
Like many other authorities the OS have had their personnel in our neck
of the woods. They consulted us on the sheet lines we would prefer for
the county, and acted upon suggestions. They also consulted us with
draft Explorers asking us to check ROW info and requesting details of
any other frature we felt appropriate to add. They also spent time with
the LOS and LOS map.
One or two of us who have an interest in these things and knowing the
variable standard of recording in some authorities asked the OS person
if they were getting a full and frank set of information from all
authorities. Off the record the OS man said that they were very aware
that all the information was not forthcoming from some authorities. We
did not pursue what the OS intended to do about it.
I await with baited breath the release of the next batch of Explores
which will cover parts of nearby counties where I have a pretty good
idea of the extent of UC road information.
Cheers,Mike.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:33:29 -0000
Subject: MP
sent:
Dear Mr Chidgey
I am told that you have put your name behind and organisation called GLEAM.
I would ask that you look closely at this organisation and its motives.
As far as I am aware they seek not to save our heritage routes (those old
carriageways not covered with black top) and have them correctly recorded
and maintained for all to enjoy, but they seek to have them closed.
This is, of course, counter to the spirit of legislation dating back to
1555. Look closely also at their claims and at their statistics. In my
view the word mendacious covers much of their propaganda. Look also at the
leaders of this organisation and ask if they might have a pecuniary
interest in the removal of public rights from old carriageways. Many, you
will note, have such ways across their land.
I would be pleased if you could confirm, or otherwise, your links with
GLEAM.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 99 23:42 GMT0
Subject: Re: MP Bennett
<<<<Some politicians get lured>>>>
Was he lured, or was he pushed? Or was lurid a better description?
<<< when they're in the middle of delivering leaflets for major
by-elections.>>>
Guys, lets hear it for the worlds _only_ decent politician........goes
greenlaning in his suit on election day....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:49:27 -0500
Subject: Re: OS explorers
> There is a sign up in the Landcharge off above the county road maps, it
> says in so many words:-
> This maps are not accurate!!! so how do they maintain them if they do
> not know where they are?
It should say something like,
"This is the information we hold on roads which we accept are maintained at
public expense. They have not been publicly tested as those on the Def Map
have, and thus may not be legally definitive. They do not contain details
of Privately maintained Public Roads"
There are likely to be more untarred public roads NOT shown than are shown.
But they do not want you to know that.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 17 lines 691 [forwarded 23 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 544 [content 438 forwarded 23 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990222 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]