"Swallowed by vegetation - prepare to be lashed by nettles"
"OK if it's not been ploughed"
"Better than most roads"
"Fine if it's not wet"
"Glad I have suspension"
There is of course (not pictured) "muddy quagmire", "essentially a river", "field of cows" and many more!
What's your favourite/least favourite type of bridleway?
3,4,5,2,1 would be my Preference where are these pictures taken.
Old railway tracks make great off road trails. sadly not many round here, Woodland fire trails is another river and canal tow paths
ogg wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 3:03pm
We probably need some kind of grading for them
"Swallowed by vegetation - prepare to be lashed by nettles"
"OK if it's not been ploughed"
"Better than most roads"
"Fine if it's not wet"
"Glad I have suspension"
There is of course (not pictured) "muddy quagmire", "essentially a river", "field of cows" and many more!
Apart from (perhaps) 3, these are all pretty good for horses. The clue's in the name!
mattheus wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 4:14pm
Apart from (perhaps) 3, these are all pretty good for horses. The clue's in the name!
Only to lead a horse by the bridle.
I use a few, I always plan to do so on the assumption that they'll be fit to walk my bike along, that's usually but not always the case, any riding is a bonus.
The only good one I remember is the NCN51 alongside the Cambridgeshire Busway. Wide and tarmac. All others are merely tolerable when there's no better option for the link. Most are unsuitable for anything except MTB riders, dedicated cyclocrossers and masochists and should not be on any general cycle route.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
I don't know much about rights of way but I don't think it's right that horses cannot be ridden on bridleways. I do believe that it's now permitted to ride a bicycle on a bridleway.
I don't think PH was talking about whether riding horses on bridleways is permitted, but rather about whether it is feasible on some of them. Cycling on bridleways was permitted by the 1968 Countryside Act, although it took about another four decades for the rest of the population to catch up and realise that those cyclists were no longer committing any offence.
The other day, after nearly being garrotted by a rope, put across a bridle way , along with no access signs I consulted. The definitive map to realise they are now designated as tracks, undeterred I check the latest os map to realise they have done this also.
thirdcrank wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 7:17pm
I don't know much about rights of way but I don't think it's right that horses cannot be ridden on bridleways. I do believe that it's now permitted to ride a bicycle on a bridleway.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was only commenting on the clue being in the name, rather than any legal standing.
I do know that the legislation that permitted their use to include bicycles doesn't create any obligation to facilitate that.
drossall wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 7:34pm
I don't think PH was talking about whether riding horses on bridleways is permitted, but rather about whether it is feasible on some of them.
Discussion elsewhere on the web draws the nice conclusion that a bridleway is a right, not a thing. I have encountered public footpaths where seaside erosion has cut away the clifftop and left a 50 foot vertical drop in its place. I have the legal right at such places, to step off into space … if I really want to.
It is a right - which is presumably why it's called a right of way. As I said, my knowledge is limited but I believe that if eg the collapse of cliffs takes out a R-o-W then it takes a new line a bit further inland, subject to circumstances. At the foot of the cliffs, the rules about the foreshore are different again
ogg wrote: ↑11 Aug 2021, 3:03pm
We probably need some kind of grading for them
I've recently thought this would be good for planning a route in unfamiliar territory. I was told the old Bartholomew 1:100,000 maps were popular with cyclists as they indicated how good tracks were (in about 1930?) with different markings showing the state. However I understand this fell into disrepute as the maps were not updated as some tracks deteriorated and others improved.
My first thought for grading was 0-10 where 0 is a smooth tarmac surface and 10 would be having to carry your bike over rocks. My second thought was the minimum size tyre, in mm, suitable for the track. All very subjective, doesn't indicate the foliage issues and could change in different seasons.
The Bart's maps were good for cyclists because they were drawn at the useful scale of ½" = one mile but I don't remember them as being good for showing the type of surface. In fact, I think they were criticised for being unreliable in that way
