Talk:The Ramblers

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

England C‑class Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Many thanks, Angela, for your help Dieter Simon 19:03, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

No problem. Glad I could help. Angela

long-distance footpaths

It should be pointed out that many RA activiists are NOT that struck on long-distance footpaths, and see as their main objective to maintain the lowland footpath network in a reasonable state, and to achieve and then maintain free(er) access to uncultivated uplands.

And at the other end of the scale I recollect it's the RA which organises the annual 4-peaks walk/run in the Lake District Linuxlad 22:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some of the objectives indicated were certainly official when I was walking actively a year or so ago. You must include all you know, in the article, as long as it can be substantiated. Don't tell us, Linuxlad, tell the readers. Dieter Simon 23:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One point of a talk page is to air possible differences of perception before rushing into print on the main article :-) I've been an RA member for several years (thirty or more) but don't walk regularly with a group. My perception of a lack of enthusiasm for long-distance fp was last 'refreshed' when I took it upon myself to talk to the local RA rep. about proposed changes to the Cotswold Way - that was 5 or more years back. Your recent recall of 'official objectives' would of course have to carry more weight than my fading memory Linuxlad 13:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your are right that points need to be discussed, but sometimes it is best to put the paras into the article and then discuss them. It is an encyclopaedia rather than a forum, and Wikipedians will alter what they consider to have more up-to-date facts of and then discuss it. It really isn’t a problem, we have all had it happen to us.

I belong(ed) to the East Surrey group of the Ramblers’ Association, although not terribly large, they certainly were very enthusiastic about some of their long distance walking. I myself took part in the various parts of the Greensand Way (108 miles) in Surrey and Kent, due to my incipient arthritis condition I could not join them on their Saxon Shore Way (163m), and this year they are undertaking the Sussex Border Path of 153m in again various stages. I also belonged to the Croydon section of the Ramblers’ A., who again arranged long and short sections. What normally happens is that the more able walkers take part in these long distance foothpath walks, while the more senior members don’t set their sights quite so high.Dieter Simon 00:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've made an addition, based on my experience - Dieter has had an edit, which I've reverted. Some people (especially in areas with lots of 'little' footpaths like the Derbyshire 'white peak', or parts of rural Gloucestershire) find the shear patchwork diversity of the old fp network its greatest charm, and long-distance paths anathema - sorry. Linuxlad

Ok, I only wanted to try to get down to what the "many facets of the (footpath network) are (or may be). You see, the reader won't know what your experiences are, will he? So, it would be good if you can add that. Thanks Dieter Simon 01:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this article

The front page of their website gives "The Ramblers" as their "public identity", and the copyright notice at the bottom reads "The Ramblers Association" (no apostrophe). Shouldn't this therefore be at one of those? Loganberry (Talk) 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of the Ramblers is the Ramblers Association. It is so called in the Articles of Association which says 'The name of the company is The Ramblers' Association, called in this document "Ramblers".'. The name of the article should be The Ramblers' Association.

- - Moved from main article, 2th March 2007 Linuxlad

Controversy

The RA has a history of conflict with other users of rights of way and has campaigned against their use of the countryside, particularly 4x4 vehicles and motorbikes, however mountain bikes and horse riders have been targeted. Supporters of the targeted groups have often found the evidence used by the RA to be severely flawed while the effects of walkers on the countryside is ignored. Of these single interest groups the RA has the largest political lobby and coverage in the popular press.

- - end of moved material

- - - If this were to be brought back into the mainspace article, it would have to be accompanied by citations of the source material. Statements such as this need to be substantiated by whoever made statements to that effect, and when these conflicts occurred. Dieter Simon 17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

This article redirects to itself. 98.169.106.88 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A minor problem! It's sorted now, I think. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Naked Ramblers section

The "Naked Ramblers" section talks about several naked ramblers (note the lower case 'r' here). But I see nothing in this article to suggest that any of these people were members of, or had any connection to, The Ramblers.

If there are no sources to indicate any such link, then this section does not seem relevant to the subject of this article. The paragraph should be removed (or transferred, where appropriate to naked hiking). --David Edgar (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the sources given don't establish any connection of any naked walkers with the Ramblers, they should be removed from the article. Stephen Gough does not seem to be associated with the Ramblers in the Wiki article created about him. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walking group size

I've deleted the following section as it is opinion and speculation without references:

One of the inherent problems with Ramblers Walking Groups is the size and number of actual Ramblers participating in the walks. Group sizes of 20+ Ramblers all walking together has led to problems with Landowners and other countryside users in the form of gates left open,litter and also open confrontation with other countryside users, this often being the case with a 'Safety in numbers' mentality of the larger walking groups and therefore it is recommended that Ramblers walking group sizes be kept to manageable numbers in order to improve the overall walking experience for members. ^{[citation needed]}

If appropriate references can be found, the intended messages (i.e. that some people feel this way) may be appropriate. However, I'd be surprised if there were good evidence that larger groups leave more litter per person, or are more likely to leave gates open. StephenDawson (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too, would be surprised. All the groups I've ever been a member of saw to it and made it their first and last task not to leave anything behind nor leaving gates or stiles open. It is part of the code of ethics of the Ramblers to take care of the countryside. Dieter Simon (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this article

Can someone, with the expertise, correct the article's title? The organization is The Ramblers. Rwood128 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I've done this correctly. Rwood128 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Ramblers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120305014149/http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Celebrating+75+Years+at+the+Heart+of+Walking to http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Celebrating+75+Years+at+the+Heart+of+Walking

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless

Crops in fields growing or harvested, foliage on trees changing, footpaths overgrowing—all will make a difference to what Ramblers will do.

What does this mean? Valetude (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]