[Talk-GB] Changing "stub" cycleways to pavements

[Mark Goodge]

On 15/02/2022 15:25, Martin Wynne wrote:

> Assuming I've found the location being referred to, there may be 
> historic/legal reasons for the sign location. For example Streetview 
> shows property boundaries at that location on both sides (painted wall, 
> fence), and this map shows some sort of hatched boundary crossing the 
> road at that very location:
> 
> 
> https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=19&lat=53.38411&lon=-2.62524&layers=168&b=1 

It gets even more complicated. According to Warrington's planning map 
(which isn't quite OS Mastermap, but is probably as close as you're 
likely to get on the web), the entire width of the bridge, including 
what appear to be footways at the sides of the carriageway, is actually 
carriageway. So, legally, it's probably likely that cyclists can ride 
across the bridge on what seems to be the footway, because it isn't 
really a footway, even though it looks like one. This may be why the 
shared use path ends at that point, because that's the end of the 
section which has that particular TRO applied to it, but the reason the 
shared-use path seemingly ends in a dead end at a footway is because the 
footway isn't really a footway.

There's no way to prove this, though, without delving into the archives 
at Warrington Borough Council. I'm not sure that even WBC has anything 
definitive on the matter. And, whatever the legal truth, this does 
neatly illustrate the difficulty of deriving legal facts from what's 
visible on the ground.

Mark