<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000099">
Don't forget the (relatively) new plum-coloured waymarks for
Restricted Byways (which replaced RUPPs).<br>
<br>
The more-or-less definitive guide to waymarking of public rights of
way in England & Wales is at:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/31037">http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/31037</a><br>
<br>
As others have correctly said, there is flexibility in the scheme
and various Highway Authorities have local variants - but the colour
scheme is pretty invariant. White is also used for officially
recognised permissive ways. Of course mistakes are made but the
practice is reasonably well followed anywhere I walk.<br>
<br>
If a path has an appropriate finger post at each end (as required by
law where it leaves the county road) I would feel able to record the
way as a public right of way (of appropriate status) even without
intervening waymarking so long as the intervening route on the
ground was reasonably unambiguous and without branches.<br>
<br>
Finger posts are normally installed by the Highway Authority's
contractors. Waymarks are variously placed by Highway Authority
employees or contractors - or by authorised individuals (of which I
am one!) in footpath charities.<br>
<br>
A possible source of confusion is that yellow waymarks (for
visibility) are often also used for named trails which may not
always be along public rights of way. Good practice is to use white
waymarks where the path is merely permissive. But be wary of
waymarks which carry the name of a trail - these have no statutory
significance.<br>
<br>
"White roads" are - as Phil says - tricky. The Highway Authority
should have a publicly available "List of Streets" - sometimes on
line - showing which are "county roads". This should be public
domain information (it is a statutory duty funded by the taxpayer!)
but ask your HA to confirm.<br>
<br>
OS - as usual - is unreliable in these matters - most often because
it can be a decade or more out-of-date - however often we (and/or
the HA) report changes and errors to them!<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
On 13/05/2012 12:00, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-gb-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-gb-request@openstreetmap.org</a> wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:mailman.4.1336906802.5066.talk-gb@openstreetmap.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Send Talk-GB mailing list submissions to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org">talk-gb@openstreetmap.org</a>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-gb-request@openstreetmap.org">talk-gb-request@openstreetmap.org</a>
You can reach the person managing the list at
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-gb-owner@openstreetmap.org">talk-gb-owner@openstreetmap.org</a>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-GB digest..."
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">Today's Topics:
1. Re: Rights of way - Image vote (Philip Barnes)
2. Re: Rights of way - Image vote (Ed Loach)
3. Re: Rights of way - Image vote (Philip Barnes)
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<b>Mike Harris</b></div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>