# Bridleway coverage



## iwantanewbike (25 Mar 2015)

Hi,

Just getting more into off-road rides and whilst I have a few local forests (Tilgate Park, Leith Hill, Deer's Leap and St. Leonards), I'm also quite interested in exploring on bridle ways.

I'm using a combination of OSM, OS maps etc. to plan routes and have also found this site:
http://www.bridlewaymap.com/

I've noticed that bridleway coverage is variable, e.g. West Sussex, Surrey, the North and South Downs all have very good coverage, however much of East Sussex, Kent and Hampshire is very sparse. I'm especially surprised there is virtually nothing cutting across the Ashdown Forest and there seem to be clear divides from county to county.

My question is, in order to promote active travel, what can be done to improve the bridleway network - is it fruitless to hope for a better, joined up network?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Mar 2015)

iwantanewbike said:


> My question is, in order to promote active travel, what can be done to improve the bridleway network - is it fruitless to hope for a better, joined up network?


Cock all. The land owners all over SE England did a cracking job of avoiding bridleways being created in the first place and would rather not have any new ones created, or footpaths upgraded to bridleway status unless there is something in it for them.

Most bridleways hereabouts are useless from an active travel/sustainable transport pov and see much more use for recreational/social riding by equestrians and off-road cyclists alike.

And speaking to the RoW teams at CC level is a waste of time, the LA is in the landowners' back pockets, and RoW are at the bottom of the LA's list of priorities.

Bikehike is a good site, includes online OS mapping.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Mar 2015)

Around here land owners took advantage of the last foot and mouth disease outbreak to close some trails by blocking them.

These may not have been bridleways, but were established trails in regular use by mountain bikers.

Another problem was lack of use during the outbreak, the narrower - almost certainly unofficial - trails quickly become overgrown if not used.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (26 Mar 2015)

Thanks for putting that link, iwantanewbike, it's really helpful. Helps planning various thoughts of mine.


----------



## Venod (26 Mar 2015)

There are some very good Land Owners who welcome people using ROW and reinstate them if ploughed (as they should) but there is a substantial number of land owners who consider public access an inconvenience and are not very co-operative, I think in England we are a long way from the Scottish access for all model, its just not a priority for most people, but in my view it should be pursued as a matter of health improvement, but we all know the promise of the Olympic legacy has not materialised with cutbacks shutting down leisure centres & swimming baths, so ROW have little chance.


----------



## SatNavSaysStraightOn (26 Mar 2015)

I would also suggest that that map is wrong in many places as well. Looking at my current area I know of plenty of bridleways that are simply not marked on that map full stop. They are no even there as paths or anything similar.

Can I suggest this website... It works really well for all types of paths, bridleways, roads, permitted bridleways, permitted paths, byways and more. https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/shop/os-getamap.html?gclid=CLLQjaXdxcQCFWfKtAodaAIA5g


----------



## ColinJ (26 Mar 2015)

We are very lucky in Calderdale in terms of bridleway coverage. We have some really excellent gnarly trails to enjoy, as well as plenty of easier ones. Just down the road in Kirklees, the story is apparently very different though - very poor.


----------



## surfdude (26 Mar 2015)

young ED will be along soon with a "get off my land "


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (26 Mar 2015)

A quick history lesson to counter some of oft spouted bollocks including some of that spouted in this thread thus far.

The current legally protected PROW network was defined in the early 1950 by every parish claiming the PRoW within their boundary that they could prove historic usage. some parishes were very through and some not so. To get routes added to removed from the map there had to be appropriate proof for the existence or non-existence of that public right. That's why you'll find routes dead ending or changing status at parish boundaries as there was no mechanism to cross check the claims. This disjointed approach gets even more comical at country boundaries. If anyone is to blame for the mismatch network we have today then point your fingers at parish, district, county council of the 50s and the gov of that time for creating a legacy is nigh on impossible to fully correct as they legal process to do so is expensive, long winded and uncertain in outcome. Hopefully the deregulation bill will makes things easier should it become law

Unfortunately bridleways should be maintained for horse traffic and not cycles, since the historic usage is for horse. The right to cycle on them is in reality only a concession and does not place any obligation for anyone to facilitate their usage (CA1968 S30). In other words you can use them but you can't expect anything whilst doing so, and every other legal user has priority over you.

So stop bitching about local authorities as they only have the legislation to work with. And if you think PRoW legislation is unworkable then don't even try to understand that behind cycleways

To get more bridleways find historical evidence to support a modification order - you've got 'til 2026 to get that claim deposited with your highway authority.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (26 Mar 2015)

One more thing - don't use open street map or any of its derivatives as by their crowd sourced nature are full of errors. I've just looked at the bridleway.com for areas I've working in professionally for over 20 years and its content and accuracy is laughable.

Most highway authorities (county/unitary councils) now have a PRoW map on their website - that will be far more accurate than anything else out there


----------



## ColinJ (26 Mar 2015)

Ffoeg said:


> To get more bridleways find historical evidence to support a modification order - you've got 'til 2026 to get that claim deposited with your highway authority.


That's the kind of thing that the South Pennines Packhorse Trail Trust is working on round here.


----------



## Jody (27 Mar 2015)

ColinJ said:


> That's the kind of thing that the South Pennines Packhorse Trail Trust is working on round here.



and the same thing that Peak MTB etc is also working towards. Reinstating historic bridleways and upgrading some footpaths to bridleways.


----------



## Jody (27 Mar 2015)

Ffoeg said:


> Unfortunately bridleways should be maintained for horse traffic and not cycles, since the historic usage is for horse. The right to cycle on them is in reality only a concession and does not place any obligation for anyone to facilitate their usage (CA1968 S30).



Disabled users can place an obligation of trail maintenance on councils though under the accsess for all guidelines. The council is currently looking at flattening some good routes in the peaks.


----------



## ColinJ (27 Mar 2015)

Jody said:


> Disabled users can place an obligation of trail maintenance on councils though under the accsess for all guidelines. The council is currently looking at flattening some good routes in the peaks.


That issue is a bit more contentious ... some local mountain bikers are very upset at the 'sanitising' of several routes which used to be very hard and technically challenging but which now just need a reasonable level of fitness to get over.

It is right that the public and especially the disabled should get as much access as is reasonable, but let's not blitz everything in sight to try and enable everyone to get everywhere.

A couple of examples from one of my MTB rides on the Mary Towneley Loop - what would you have to do to the trail to make it possible to get a wheelchair up this ...







Or this ...?


----------



## Jody (27 Mar 2015)

ColinJ said:


> It is right that the public and especially the disabled should get as much access as is reasonable, but let's not blitz everything in sight to try and enable everyone to get everywhere.



This sums up my view ^ 



ColinJ said:


> what would you have to do to the trail to make it possible to get a wheelchair up this ...




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-HkyQvez9o&feature=youtu.be
Not much looking at what wheelchairs they are using. They look pretty nifty.

http://disabledramblers.co.uk/access-issues/report-on-chapel-gate-repairs/


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (27 Mar 2015)

Jody said:


> Disabled users can place an obligation of trail maintenance on councils though under the accsess for all guidelines. The council is currently looking at flattening some good routes in the peaks.


Which council? There are 11 authorities with an interest within the boundaries on the PDNP, as well as the PDNPA itself. When I worked for the PDNPA a few years ago Access for All was an internal policy. The only thing that comes close to being across the country is NE's (and formerly CoAgs) guidance document "By All Reasonable Means", but it is not a legal directive. However the DDA and Equality Act do place an onus on the service provider, which an entirety separate discussion to this. Any access improvements need to be realistic and consider location and demand, all highway authorities have a Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) which is very good way to get access improvement suggestions on the radar.



Jody said:


> and the same thing that Peak MTB etc is also working towards. Reinstating historic bridleways and upgrading some footpaths to bridleways.


There is no way a bridleway can be created due to historical use only, for the reasons I stated above. The claim needs to be supported by historic equine use. Cycle use alone gets you a restricted byway, which means usage everything up to and including non-mechanically propelled vehicles. Working with byway and bridleway societies is a far better route to get changes made, as most are already well into researching and preparing claims in advance of the 2026 deadline.



Jody said:


>


A great organisation who I've had the pleasure of spending the day with a couple of occasions. It's very interesting to get to know 1st hand how they can and want to use thecountryside and just how capable those Trampers are


----------



## ColinJ (27 Mar 2015)

Jody said:


> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-HkyQvez9o&feature=youtu.be
> Not much looking at what wheelchairs they are using. They look pretty nifty.
> 
> http://disabledramblers.co.uk/access-issues/report-on-chapel-gate-repairs/



Super!


----------



## Psycolist (29 Mar 2015)

From a purely personal viewpoint, I got into off roading about 18 months ago. In that time I have not once had a "get off my land" incident. I try to use marked footpaths, bridleways and rights of way, but these often lead to options where there is no clear signage showing where to go at a junction of fields, paths etc. At such points I will re visit the area and try all options, sometimes ending at a dead end, sometimes leading into areas never visited before, and sometimes just being a field boundary and ending up back where you started. I have met dog walkers, horse riders, ramblers, runners, farmers, workmen, land owners and fishermen. Not once have I been denied access or been asked to leave. I try to stick to clearly used routes and not trespass across fence lines, although a locked gate with a path/track going through it wont stop me. I have visited wind farms, solar farms, fisheries and farms all around my home area, even a navigation beacon used by aircraft, and anyone encountered has always been polite and helpful, with no question raised as to my right to be there. Maybe I have been lucky, but I think if you stick to trodden paths, there should be no problem, regardless of what any map has to say.


----------



## mrbikerboy73 (31 Mar 2015)

Tail End Charlie said:


> Thanks for putting that link, iwantanewbike, it's really helpful. Helps planning various thoughts of mine.


+1 on that. Cheers @iwantanewbike, great website!


----------



## NorthernDave (31 Mar 2015)

Agreed, great post. Looking around where I live (Leeds) it only seems to show the "definitive" bridleways though - there are a lot if non-definitive ones that should be open to use but it seems like pot luck establishing if they are. At least one has had "No Access" signs on it and the council seem reluctant to do anything about it despite the landowner previously admitting it as a "definitive" route on at least two occasions...


----------

