[Talk-GB] Rights of Way tiles

[Colin Smale]

"Unadopted" does not imply "unpaved". It just means the highways authority does not maintain the road (surface) - but somebody else might. For example the residents might get together to pave the road, provide street lighting etc.

https://www.garnessjonesresidential.co.uk/news/who-owns-a-private-road-are-residents-responsible-for-maintaining-it


> On 12/20/2021 5:08 PM Paul Berry <pmberry2007 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Chris,
> 
> Not my view nor my experience though I'm sure it differs by area. A road that's unadopted does not imply it's not a public right of way. Plenty of them are private roads, as you'd expect, but a surprising number constitute rights of way. For "unadopted," especially on a road name sign, read "unpaved" rather than "private" - people will absolutely sign a private road as such.
> 
> As always, there's sometimes a complicated and obscure dance between landowner, operator, surface and access. Assume nothing.
> 
> Regards,
> Paul
> 
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2021 at 13:23, Chris Hodges <chris at c-hodges.co.uk mailto:chris at c-hodges.co.uk > wrote:
> 
> > When I lived somewhere with one of these (Filton, Bristol), it was clearly unadopted - we were suppose to pay ground rent for the use, but the relevant descendant of the last-named landowner didn't show any interest and what little  maintenance took placewas done by the adjoining homeowners, so they did get overgrown in places. There were a few interlinked alleys so cutting through was possible; some have been gated to prevent this and the potholes acted as a deterrent to through traffic.
> > 
> > That would seem to imply "private".  Currently the ones round there are highway=track, access=yes. When we were selling, the land registry had no helpful records available.  So it's a bit of a mess. Even finding out who would be responsible for putting up a "private" sign would be hard enough
> > 
> > Chris
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 20/12/2021 12:23, Adam Snape wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2021, 12:13 David Woolley, <forums at david-woolley.me.uk mailto:forums at david-woolley.me.uk > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > One problem I've found on that is people who religiously apply the on
> > > > the ground rule and won't accept that it is common sense that service
> > > > roads behind rows of houses are private, and they don't need to be
> > > > signposted as private to be assumed private.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Oh, that one depends on where you live and the type of access road. In Lancashire the vast majority of such roads are back streets behind terraced houses (Coronation Street style) and the vast majority of those are adopted public highways which the public have a right to use as they do any other highway.
> > > 
> > > In some areas where there has been antisocial behaviour their access has subsequently been restricted by Gating Orders but in the absence of indication on the ground, my default assumption wouldn't be that access=private.
> > > 
> > > Kind regards,
> > > 
> > > Adam
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Talk-GB mailing list
> > > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-GB mailing list
> > Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20211220/0f0344b2/attachment-0001.htm>