depends on the local authorities' attitude. Some have no interest in paths away from what they perceive as 'official tourist routes'.

Cornwall seem to have very little interest in that aspect of the tourist trade, it's beaches and caravans down there.

soughers' comment re width of a footpath is the basis of the vexatious litigation referred to earlier..

---

That footpath was a total joke! I'm glad you followed the track bed up to the incline (although the footpath wasn't too clever there either).

I have a theory surrounding areas which have been subjected to opencasting/extraction, the crux of which not only boils down to a lack of maintenance of the paths themselves, but a total lack of upkeep of vital drainage channels. I'm sure that with adequately maintaned drainage across this particular location, surface run-off would find itself reaching it's intended watercourse or pond rather than causing contenders for 'Britain's worst kept footpath'.

Actually Fareste there is an even better one, remember the site near Denby Pottery i took you to?, remember I said the whole area had been opencasted behind, well the gully created behind was deeper than the brook you saw... which then filled with 7 feet deep of water... bring your own sub if you fancied a walk to Salterwood... 😮

---

A reasonable and readable summation on Public Rights of Way (PROW's) may be found in Countryside Law. Garner & Jones, 1997, or later. Shaw and Sons. ISBN 0 7219 1062 9. See Chapter 3.

Isn't there a law / statute, that restricts the use of barbed wire where the public are likely to contact it, such a roadsides and footpaths?
Definately not stiles! Duty of care and all that.....

---

Yes but I think they hope if they put it close enough just to Rip loose clothes etc it will put us all off...

---

Hi sougher. I would like to know more about the boggart called old mary. i am currently reasearching boggarts in the derbyshire area

I think we will find that proposed government funding cuts will have a major impact on low priority projects such as footpaths.

Actually AR thats not a bad point... I do only go to deal with a specific objective... I don't usually carry a hedge laying tool.... 😎

Remembering my ancient RA Handbook...

In that case you are liable to be done for Criminal Damage. If you
'just happen' to have the tool as a 'Natural Accompaniment' then you
are OK.

You are allowed to remove sufficient of the obstruction to allow you to
continue on your way - however you should ensure that a fence remains
Stockproof etc.. otherwise you are liable. Failing that you are allowed
to make the minimum detour to allow you avoid the obstacle.

Consult the RA, or their Handbook, for more up to date advice on
current law - I allowed my membership to lapse about a decade ago.

The RA were, in my time, very wobbly over the temporary diversion issue
because it is/was so often misused. For example a development near me
got an order during construction and kept renewing it, which went
through 'on the nod', for, IIRC, nearly five years before the RA were
able to get a key part of the local footpath network reopened. But it
took a lot of effort and MONEY for legal fees, which is why the
RA are so wary of them.

That said, there is a 'Militant Wing' within the RA who against any
closures or adjustments, temporary or otherwise. There is a constant
internal battle between the various levels of 'reasonableness' - from
the 'Levellers' who think all Landowners should be shot on principle to
the people who are so 'reasonable' that they let people get away with
almost anything.

Rick