Ordnance Survey magazine

I've always held the Ordnance survey in the highest regard and so was shocked by
several inaccuracies in the latest OS Magazine.
customerservices@...

I was sufficiently moved to email the following:

'Dear Editor

I'm a bit concerned by the significant inaccuracies in the latest edition of the
magazine.

In particular, in 'All you need to know about rights of way', it is not made
clear that the law in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales.
Anyone reading the article would assume that the symbols for rights of way are
depicted on maps of Scotland. They are not!

In the article about Wainwright's Coast to Coast Walk, which I've walked
forty-eight times in the last twenty years, the caption for the first picture is
'Ennerdale Lake'. This should be 'The lake at Ennerdale' because, as is
correctly stated in the text, it's proper name is 'Ennerdale Water'. There's an
old chestnut used by many guides to amuse the tourists: 'How many lakes are
there in the Lake District?' Answer 'One, Bassenthwaite Lake'. All the others
are either 'water', 'mere' or 'tarn'.

Also, it is stated that 'You will now make your way to Westmorland and Yorkshire
Dales...'. The county of Westmorland was subsumed into Cumbria nearly forty
years ago and the name no longer appears on any OS map or in the OS Gazetteer of
Great Britain. In fact, after leaving the Lake District at Burnbanks on
Haweswater, you don't enter the Yorkshire Dales for another thirty miles.

Hope that this helps!'

There are other examples of dubious information. Mention is made of the 'right'
of landowners to divert PRoWs without the essential qualification that it can
only be done by due legal process.

We are also told that 'Footpaths include the right to use a wheelchair, pram or
pushchair if you physically can, and the right to take a dog on a short lead
under close control.' My understanding is that this is a grey area. In R v
Matthias in 1861 it was held that it was legal to take a pram on a footpath
because it is a natural accompaniment of a pedestrian. It has often been
inferred from this judgement that it is also legal to take dogs and wheelchairs,
but I'm not sure that it can be concluded that it is a right.

Hugh

Hi Hugh,

Interesting, I am guessing that the magazine is actually written bya freelance hack (which doesnt excuse the technical errors, but does explain it).

You raise an interesting point re dogs, prams and pushchairs. My understanding is that the position is quite clear dogs and pushchairs - taking them on a path is perfectly legal (this based on 10 years working for the NFU, including delivering training on the whys and wherefors of footpaths).   I cant remember why - but the NFU legal eagles were emphatic - dogs and pushchairs cannot be prevented from using a footpath.

Wheelchairs were a little more "grey" - except the DDA overruled any objections in that if you tried not to allow wheelchairs you would fall foul of the DDA.

Caveat to this.  Under the DDA etc if it is  not reasonable to provide access (cost/logistics etc) then there is no requirment to do so.  

GOF

<My understanding is that the position is quite clear dogs and pushchairs - taking them on a path is perfectly legal (this based on 10 years working for the NFU, including delivering training on the whys and wherefors of footpaths). I cant remember why - but the NFU legal eagles were emphatic - dogs and pushchairs cannot be prevented from using a footpath.>

I agree with the NFU's advice that it would be most unwise for a landowner to attempt to ban dogs on any right of way, nevertheless there is nothing enshrined in law that gives a person an absolute right to take a dog on a footpath.

The standard book 'Rights of Way; a Guide to Law and Practice' which is the bible of rights of way officers and those in legal profession that specialize in rights of way states 'As dogs have, since time immemorial, been taken on footpaths it seems that a court would hold that they are a "usual accompaniment" of a foot passenger. For a walker to take a dog is therefore no trespass. The entitlement to take a dog on a public right of way is confined to the line of the path, and exists while the dog is accompanying its owner or keeper. Thus if a dog is allowed to run around off the path, trespass is committed against the holder of the land.' ?

Contrary to what is stated in the OS article, there is no general requirement in law that on a right of way a dog must be kept on a lead although there can be such a requirement in certain specific circumstances.

Hugh

Quite agree with your position re dogs not straying off a right of way - of course, that applies to the owner/handler as well...now I have kicked over that can of worms I shall wonder off to bed...

Although there is no specific right to take a dog on rights of way England and Wales there are a few laws of which owners should be aware:

1 It is an offence, under the Protection of Livestock Act 1953, to allow dog to be at large in a field or enclosure in which there are sheep. This does not apply to dogs owned by the landholder, the owner of the sheep or a person authorized by either of them, nor does it apply to a police dog, a trained sheep dog, a working gun dog, or a pack of hounds.

2 It is an offence under the same Act to allow a dog to chase or attack livestock. A farmer may shoot a dog attacking or chasing livestock without being liable to compensate the dog's owner.

3 Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, a person who takes a dog on access land is required to keep it on a short lead between 1st March and 31st July and any time that it is in the vicinity of livestock on such land.

There is another error in the OS magazine. It states that cyclists are 'permitted' to use bridleways. In fact, cyclists have a right to use bridleways but are required to give way to walkers and horse riders (Countryside Act 1968).

Hugh