Join the Big Pathwatch

[Philip Benstead]

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/bigpathwatch

[landsurfer]

What a lovely idea Phillip.
But like Friends Of The Earth the Ramblers is now a political organisation.
According to the "Vision" section of the link you posted ...
Not for me ... just like FOE....

[Bicycler]

I've been doing it. It is however of limited use to cyclists. Yes, blocked bridleways (etc.) are reported but problems only affecting cyclists/horses/vehicles are not part of the survey. From the FAQ:

Will the survey consider usability from a horse rider or cyclist point of view?

No. Though we will be checking all rights of way, it will be from a walker’s perspective only. However, improving the condition of the paths for walkers will inevitability improve usability for all users in many cases.

On a more general note it is important that we do make the effort to report problems we encounter when cycling on rights of way. It is necessary to contact the relevant highway authority (normally the county or metropolitan borough council) who need to take action but it also makes good sense to inform the British Horse Society who have a good record of chasing up bridleway/byway problems (unlike - from my experience - the national cycling charity).

[Philip Benstead]

What a lovely idea Phillip.
But like Friends Of The Earth the Ramblers is now a political organisation.
According to the "Vision" section of the link you posted ...
Not for me ... just like FOE....

Define what you mean by politicàl

[Tangled Metal]

I guess all have to be a little political if they have to deal with authority. I reckon CTC and Sustrans are political too. I'd not put them at the same level of political activity as FOE. Not into those stunts like dumping a lot of non-returnable bottles outside Schweppes. They're more into providing relevant local authorities with information on blockages to ROW in their areas which they have a legal responsibility to maintain for use. Or taking landowners to court when local authorities won't/can't to ensure legal access ensured for future generations. All within the law in every way (spirit and letter of the law). Also local ramblers who are activists actually tend to know the laws regarding access and know their own patch well. IMHO This makes them useful for gaining and sharing of problems in access that local authorities need to address.

I'm a fan of organizations that work within the law in.cooperation with authorities for the general good. I think ramblers, CTC and Sustrans are such bodies. FOE I'm not convinced are in the same bracket.

[pwa]

I see the Ramblers and the British Horse Society as allies. They may be critical of cyclists sometimes (as I am) but they are essentially looking for the same things that we are. I don't get involved in campaigns so I won't be taking part in this, but I already (informally) look after local public footpaths by cutting back vegetation. I know others locally who do the same, and I imagine many paths are kept open by users carrying secateurs on their walks.

[ferdinand]

The angle with the ramblers would be disabled access.

I haven't asked them about the Big Pathwatch, but they say this:

In particular the Ramblers supports the British Standard 5709:2006 on Gaps, Gates and Stiles which requires the least restrictive option for all potential users, including people with disabilities or limited mobility, where a path crosses a boundary and specifies high-quality standards where barriers are justified. We support the replacement of all stiles with more accessible alternatives, except where stiles themselves are heritage structures, in which case they can be supplemented by an adjacent more accessible alternative. - See more at: http://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/engla ... SE1qk.dpuf

If a path follows BS5709 diligently, it is *much* easier for bikes.

Here:
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/engla ... ccess.aspx

They have this advice, which is slanted the other way - explaining how difficult it is:
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/walki ... users.aspx

I think it is a good initiative and well-worth supporting but that they have missed a few tricks.

Too late to change it this time, however, since it is proforma based.

Ferdinand

[gaz]

I've been doing it, adopting a few squares that coincide with routes that I ride (legally). However this meant that there were paths within those squares that I had no intention of surveying.

I've since discovered that I can report the state of particular paths without adopting the whole square, a method I intend to adopt for future reports.

It is limited in detail. I reported one path as impassable, I was unable to record that this was due to a temporary closure by TRO.

[Fogey]

I was very interested in this, and signed up.

Then I discovered the technical expectations. It's not as straightforward as the Radio 4 report led listeners to believe.

Oh, I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who find the software straightforward, but I'm not one of them. And I fully appreciate that a computer programming qualification issued in the 1980s has a greater comedy value than a practical one.

But still, if you want people to participate...

[pwa]

The angle with the ramblers would be disabled access.

I haven't asked them about the Big Pathwatch, but they say this:

In particular the Ramblers supports the British Standard 5709:2006 on Gaps, Gates and Stiles which requires the least restrictive option for all potential users, including people with disabilities or limited mobility, where a path crosses a boundary and specifies high-quality standards where barriers are justified. We support the replacement of all stiles with more accessible alternatives, except where stiles themselves are heritage structures, in which case they can be supplemented by an adjacent more accessible alternative. - See more at: http://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/engla ... SE1qk.dpuf

If a path follows BS5709 diligently, it is *much* easier for bikes.

Here:
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/engla ... ccess.aspx

They have this advice, which is slanted the other way - explaining how difficult it is:
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/walki ... users.aspx

I think it is a good initiative and well-worth supporting but that they have missed a few tricks.

Too late to change it this time, however, since it is proforma based.

Ferdinand

The Ramblers certainly support and promote disabled access, but I don't think this initiative is specifically aimed that way. Most of the paths and bridleways used by Ramblers are rough paths up mountainsides and across fields, out in the countryside. A minority of the paths they use (e.g. those around the edges of reservoirs or beside canals, and some forestry trails) have real potential for what we normally consider "disabled access". The emphasis will naturally be on rural paths, since that is where walkers tend to prefer for leisure walking.

[Tacascarow]

What a lovely idea Phillip.
But like Friends Of The Earth the Ramblers is now a political organisation.
According to the "Vision" section of the link you posted ...
Not for me ... just like FOE....

Define what you mean by politicàl

I'm curious as well?
A lot of charities lobby politicians to promote their cause, run public campaigns to highlight issues. Why are Friends of the Earth & the Ramblers Association wrong where others aren't?
If you mean they don't agree with your politics I would understand that, but saying they are now a political organisations is false IMHO.

[pwa]

The Ramblers have always lobbied for changes in the law to give ordinary people better access to the countryside. Political and proud of it!

[Bicycler]

I was very interested in this, and signed up.

Then I discovered the technical expectations. It's not as straightforward as the Radio 4 report led listeners to believe.

Use the online version rather than the app. It's a simple online form.

[Bicycler]

I see the Ramblers and the British Horse Society as allies. They may be critical of cyclists sometimes (as I am) but they are essentially looking for the same things that we are. I don't get involved in campaigns so I won't be taking part in this, but I already (informally) look after local public footpaths by cutting back vegetation. I know others locally who do the same, and I imagine many paths are kept open by users carrying secateurs on their walks.

I'm also a carrier of secateurs

Cyclists' needs often coincide with walkers' and equestrians' so that does mean we can benefit a lot from some of the work of organisations representing these groups. As for 'allies'.... only when it's mutually convenient. In many cases it is, in others it isn't. Increased access to the countryside is indeed the Ramblers priority but increased cycle access is not and in some cases they can object most strongly to proposals to increase off road cycle access, urban shared use etc. What we have historically lacked and still really need is a strong organisation to represent the interests of off road cyclists.

When many unrecorded rights of way are extinguished in 2026 the recorded public path network will be testament to the size, influence and tenacity of the Ramblers Association, their volunteers and other active walkers' groups from the definitive map surveys in the 1950s to the present day. Regardless of the paths that will be lost forever there will still remain for those on foot an enviable network in most areas. In contrast, on that same day in 2026 the inconsistent state of the recorded bridleways and byways network, and all those incorrectly recorded as mere footpaths will stand as an indelible record of the lack of comparable resources given to pursuing the correct recording of equestrian and vehicular rights of way.

I can't blame the BHS (or other organisation representing bridleway users). Equestrians are a very small minority of path users and they do very well with what they have. The mountain bike revolution and the numbers it brought into off road cycling should have provided a real incentive to get cyclists on board and tackling this problem. Instead we have small numbers of volunteers, a CTC for whom it is but one of many pies into which they have their fingers and still this bizarre belief that the Ramblers have all our rights of way interests represented.

[landsurfer]

What a lovely idea Phillip.
But like Friends Of The Earth the Ramblers is now a political organisation.
According to the "Vision" section of the link you posted ...
Not for me ... just like FOE....

Define what you mean by political

I am uncomfortable with organisations that "believe" they are always right and if you disagree with their often forceful "beliefs" you are badged as being in "denial". They will campaign forcefully, often causing disruption, (Barton Moss fracking site). Then go home in their carbon fuelled cars and turn on the carbon based heating and light .... FOE are in my "belief" the grand political hypocrites of the age.... shan't be able to reply as im off on one of AIRBUS's finest carbon to Co2 convertors to a carbon rich holiday in Greece ...