Is it a public footpath ?

[Chris J Dixon]

Well, they zoom down to the 1:10,000 set, which seems pretty good to me.

Chris

[John Williamson]

I just report what I find......

When the site works, the sites seem to be very detailed once you zoom in.

[jgharston]

Local council Highways Department. It's usually a subsection of "Adopted Highways" section. (Room 305 in STH ;).

JGH

[Peter Crosland]

To be certain you need to look at the definitive map that is usually held by the highway authority. You can also see them on the maps here.

are marked by red dotted lines.

Peter Crosland

[MuddyMike]

The definitive map is indeed the only certain way of checking as there can be changes made that are not kept up to date on printed maps. The other good source of footpath information is the ramblers association, but I am not sure if there would be many ramblers in Mill Hill.

Mike

[Man at B&Q]

There can also be errors and omissions on definitive maps.

MBQ

[John Williamson]

Normally, if there is a dispute over public rights of way, the definitive map is the reference used. Proving the definitive map to be wrong could be tricky.

Saying that, though, *all* maps are out of date as soon as they're made.....

[funkyoldcortina]

Check the local council's official maps. Some councils provide them online, for example

- there you can just click add feature/place and then select public rights of way to have them all shown.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The map is not the territory.

[MuddyMike]

Indeed there can. It is not unheard of for a land owner to discover that an inconvenient right of way is not recorded on the definitive map and use it as an excuse to block it off. It takes a long drawn out procedure involving gathering proof of past unhindered use to get it reinstated.

Mike

[PeterC]

Useful, thanks. I've spent some time trying to find the definitive maps on line. I have one for Ashton (I used to be PPW) but no others. I see that the site is a bit old (possibly 2009, judging by tracks outside my house) and is based on the OS' mapping, so I wonder how indefinitive it is.

[mechanic]

Ring up the local Highways Authority ( the Town Hall will have contact numbers).

[Martin Bonner]

As others have said, the local authority definitive map is the your first port of call. If you think the definitive map is wrong, post again in uk.legal.moderated, where there is at least one poster with quite a lot of knowledge of RoW law.

[Mike Barnes]

MuddyMike :

I'm slightly involved in the opposite situation, where a landowner has discovered that an inconvenient right of way *is* recorded on the definitive map, and has good reason to believe that the map was drawn up in error. And the council, having examined the precursor documents, seems to agree with him.

I suspect that that's what going to happen here, after the council have corrected the "error" in the definitive map and the landowner blocks off the path.

[Phil Cook]

"Only men's minds could have mapped into abstraction such a territory."

[Roger Chapman]

The definitive map is the record of the legal route of all registered PROWs and is therefore always correct even when the route recorded is a nonsense. It is (or certainly was) possible for a landowner to challenge the route on the grounds that it never was a PROW (as happened with a section of the Ribble Way) but the onus is on the landowner to prove his case at a public enquiry which can be a very expensive process. The alternative is to get the PROW diverted which is a much easier process particularly if the landowner has friends in a position to influence events.

OTOH OS maps can be (and allegedly often are) wrong when it comes to the positioning of PROWs. I was out walking yesterday on a Bridle Path where the finger post at the start was on a different branch to that shown on the map. I have no idea which was correct but it does seem a bit odd for a local authority to site a finger post in the wrong place even if the alternative is the better option so just maybe that route has been diverted and the OS hasn't caught on. The alternative start isn't a new track, it was shown on the 1" back in 1961 (although I needed a magnifying glass to make it out.

[Roger Chapman]

I spoke too soon. I went out this morning to find a newly installed finger post pointing down my drive. One of several that have suddenly sprouted in this neighbourhood. What a waste of scarce financial resources.

[John Williamson]

Possibly cheaper than the fine for not doing it. Or sponsored by the Ramblers.

[David]

Good.

I disagree.

[Mike Barnes]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I regard such signs as worth every penny.