Is it a public footpath ?

Walking around Mill Hill North London the other day and i saw some metal gates and padlock on the entrance from the road on what i remember as a public footpath.
Went to StreetMap site and could not see it listed as a footpath. It may well be that my memory is failing, but how could i check on whether it might be a public footpath?
Streetmap on what appear to be Ordnance Survey Maps does not mark footpaths in red dotted lines like the paper version OS maps used to. The seem to have green dotted lanes marked, but whether these are the traditional public footpaths, i just dont know; i suspect not.
I went to my local WH smiths and they had such a poor stock of paper OS maps and none that covered here locally. Also they are now soooo expensive.
Can anyone give advice on finding out where the local public right of way footpaths are, please? Thanks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It might have been a permissive path.
--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You might do better to start with http://www.ramblers.org.uk/rights_of_way/knowledge_portal/rights_of_way_law/basics_of_row_law and then possibly their group http://www.ramblers.co.uk/groups/search.php?showMap=1&area=Mill+Hill |Greater+London&zoomLevel=4&
If the path is in Barnet you could also ask the council to let you look at the definitive map for the Borough.
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0hotmailcom
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"john ryan" wrote in message
Can anyone give advice on finding out where the local public right of way footpaths are, please? Thanks.
Not sure but I think Bing maps have an OS option.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OS website "getamap".
MBQ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/05/2011 15:42, john ryan wrote:

In England and Wales public footpaths are marked on OS maps in red on 1:50k and green on 1:25k so it depends which scale you are looking at on Streetmap. Walls and fences are shown on 1:25k but not on 1:50k.

the definitive answer <sorry :-)> is to look them up on the definitive map held by the local authority.
--
Phil Cook

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agreed.
Many councils have their maps available online, showing public rights of way. While these are not definitive, they're the next best thing, and often at a better scale than the maps you can buy in the shops.
Also a public footpath is identifiable by the prominent sign to that effect where it joins the public highway.
--
Mike Barnes

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/05/2011 16:20, Mike Barnes wrote:

/Should be./ I have seen instances where the sign has got lost.
--
Phil Cook

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/05/2011 16:27, Phil Cook wrote:

My access track is a PROW. Thankfully it doesn't (and as far as I know never has had) have a finger post. The top half (from where it leaves my drive) must get several traverses every year but most of the few that attempt it retreat when they get to the section where the walls have fallen in.
--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Walton Hill.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 19 May 2011 17:01:40 +0100, Roger Chapman wrote:

Isn't the landowner responsible for maintaining a PROW? Though This section with fallen walls might not be on your land.
--
Cheers
Dave.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/05/2011 17:21, Dave Liquorice wrote:

This particular footpath comes down my drive to the house (some 60 yards) and then turns though a right angle and goes down between my land and my neighbour's, with walls on both sides for most of its run. It is not on my deeds and my neighbour assures me it is not on his.
I felt compelled to rebuild part of my wall when the council cleared the previously impenetrable undergrowth some considerable time ago but that was because the wall looked a danger to any path users. The fallen walls are further down the hillside.
As a footpath it would not be particularly useful even if it was cleared. It runs straight down a steep hillside and is only marginally shorter than the road that links the two ends which itself is steep enough to discourage all but the most determined of cyclists.
--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Walton Hill.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

Deposnding on whether there is a pavement on the road, it could be very useful, especially for children needing to take that route.
Normally, fences and walls bordering a public right of way are the responsibility of the land owner, and if a boundary feature has fallen down and is obstructing the right of way, the council can force the landowner to rectify the situation. Similarly, any gate across a public right of way must be left passable by authorised users, so a locked gate is breaking the law, unless there is a stile on a footpath, or some method of bypassing it for traffic entitled to be on the right of way.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 19/05/2011 17:01, Roger Chapman wrote:

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.
--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Walton Hill.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Chapman wrote:

Possibly cheaper than the fine for not doing it. Or sponsored by the Ramblers.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Roger Chapman" wrote in message

Good.
I disagree.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David wrote:

I dont.
We have a PROW that runs from the road to a green lane. It's actual marked position runs up the side of a couple of fields, across a ditch that no one maintains and straight across a field of crops. It is dutifully sprayed off every year by the landowner, resulting in a dull path of either pure mud or hard baked clay between walls of wheat or rape. ..
No one uses it. They use the farm track that parallels it which gets mown for tractor access and so on, is equipped with bridges over the distches and is in every way a better path.
"Why, I asked the now deceased landowner, "do you not simply change it?"
"Cost, and the thought of the Ramblers association descending on the whole thing and endlessly arguing trivia. I don't mind people walking on the tracks. and it costs me little to spray the 'real' path off to keep them happy. Let sleeping dogs lie".
Needless to say the actual path has a little ugly plastic yellow sign at each end marking it out.
Had a similar experience some years ago , looking for a scenic walk. Ended up following a map to what appeared to be someone's back garden. Someone was in it, so we asked them.
"Are you from the Ramblers Association?"
"No, just looking for the footpath that goes up here" I said, indicating the map "Lord, no ones used that in 20 years..if you want to get there, follow that track there, and walk up the field on the left. It joins the old path up there and is a much nicer walk and all the dog walkers use it"
The problem is of course that the Ramblers association want things the way they were 100 years ago. I lived on the Fens. They are criss crossed with old rights of way. But no one lives there, so they are in longer in use.
A friend an I followed one, out of sheer curiosity. It led to a derelict house, that was frankly so dangerous we didn't do more than look inside.
My landlord at the time who had lived there 60 years or more, was amused "Those paths existed about WWI time, but no one lives there any more. We had about 1500 people living on the Fen then, 6 pubs and two churches. Now there's about 40 of us.There's derelict places everywhere. Mostly under mounds of earth. They just fell down when their owners died. No one wanted em. No water, no electricity. Just old cottages".
What is needed is a simple process to exchange old ways for new, in line with usage and the way things are today.
Rights to roam are a total nuisance in agricultural land, as people seem to think they can wander anywhere with no heed for the actual land use.
Indeed, they are in hill walking terms - a total ecological disaster with tracks being worn away through the constant use they get. And needing to be returned almost onto tarmac footpaths.
It is right that walkways should exist, and under statutory law too, but it is not right that either unrestricted access or inappropriate routes be left just because they were once valid routes that long dead people followed.
Meanwhile we have the stupidity of councils signposting the things up, that are simply not in use, while the regular real walkways are at risk, because they exist only be the grace and favour of the landowners. And are further put at risk by itinerant travellers, who, if the tracks are not gated off, will park up and camp for as long as they can stand the tip of rubbish they leave behind.
To be cleared at the landowners expense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I read all that and thought "What's the problem, then?", other than the fact that you find those signs ugly.

Again, what's the problem, exactly?

It would be an unusual path that went to a house and nowhere else. Dead ends do exist, of course, not all of them useless.

Simple? We're talking about local councils here. It's bound to cost money, and as the landowner you quoted earlier said, why spend money on solving a non-existent problem?

You must be talking about somewhere other than England, where there is no right to roam on agricultural land.

Track wear is usually the problem when people *can't* roam anywhere.

Mostly they're left not "just because they were once valid", but because they're not causing a problem, so it's pointless spending money changing things. Where they do cause a problem, obviously it might be worth diverting or removing the path, and that does happen.
--
Mike Barnes

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

Well that's fine if there is a path there next to it, but it should be finger posted.

Again, an alternative has been provided.

But you still chose to have a walk up there out of curiosity. You may have decided that you don't want to walk up there again but why should others not be allowed to?

If there is a maintained and clear path then people will use it.

So should only the chosen few be allowed on the hills? Would you be included in these few? Why are they an ecological disaster?

If nobody ever uses them and nobody is allowed up them then what does it matter what they look like?

I'm not interested in your prejudices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 23 May 2011 16:42:01 +0100, David wrote:

want to

left.

the dog

But is it a legal alternative? Just because "everyone uses it" does not make it legal.

disaster

There are many angles to this, some people going up onto Access Land seem hell bent on getting a Darwin. Most Access Land is by it's nature remote and exposed, it is not the place to visit in trainers, shorts and T shirt. They seem to be surprised when their mobile phone doesn't work and take it as read that the *volunteer* and *charity* funded mountain rescue has to come and pull 'em off when the weather changes or they simply get lost 'cause they havn't even got a map.
IMHO these wazzocks ought to made to pay a legally binding fee for being "resuced", say 50/rescuee/MR team member/12hrs. So a MR team of 12 rescuing 4 people gets 12 * 4 * 50 = 2400 or 4,800 if it takes more than 12hrs.

Because being able to roam anywhere disturbs the wild life. Many people wandering about will not notice the nests of ground nesting birds (crunch), delicate rare plants or keep their dogs under control (on a lead of no more than 2m during the nesting season) or not complain if their dog gets shot when it starts chasing stock, etc.

tracks

stand

So you'd be happy to pay to have removed a couple of tonnes valueless scrap, crap and general refuse that some one left in your front garden?
--
Cheers
Dave.




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.