Talk:List of long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move?[edit]

I suggest moving this to "List of long-distance footpaths in the UK" - any objections? This is in line with our list name policy without being too long. --Eloquence 11:38 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Jurassic?[edit]

Hasn't this article missed out 'Jurassic Way' in Warwickshire/Northamptonshire/Leicestershire G-Man 18:45 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Coast to Coast?[edit]

Where's the Coast to Coast? ( http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/paths/coasttocoast.html ). Has it just been forgotten, or is it purposely not on the list because it's unofficial? --David Edgar 07:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Added it. --David Edgar 10:33, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Harcamlow Way?[edit]

Shouldn't this be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xjks (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Location info?[edit]

Most entries also mention the county, others mention the start and end place names. Is there a policy to be consistent and if so which is preferred? Nick1nildram 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, should mention both and any other counties passed through.

Distance measurements[edit]

Can we have these changed to miles? Most people who walk in the UK are simply not familiar with km. Lancsalot 10:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Often a problem, although of course the UK is officially using kilometers. I end up using different systems for different things - so although I drive in miles, I really only understand a walking distance in kilometers. Perhaps we need both if someone has the patience to go through and do the conversions?

Changed to miles, which is the official UK measure for such distances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chose another name (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted- not for footpaths where it is km and m- see advice [[1]] miles to be used only in the US. Hope that is helpful. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't footpath lengths here follow the normal British practice of primarily using miles and yards? How come this article is exempt from WP:UNITS, and why isn't that fact (if it is a fact) made plainly obvious anywhere? Cousin Bluey (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is no longer the 'normal British practice'. Go to the footpaths subcommittee of any parish council- look at the consultative papers from the county (needed for a diversion or temporary closure- an and you will see it is all written in metres and it has been for decades. Google parish council footpaths committee diversion order and you will find 762 thousand examples. The reason probable lies in that it is a legal requirement. CAD systems that are needed to generate the paper work natively work on a decimal scale and the output can go through a x 63600 multiplier that is similar to WP convert template- but they will always convert back before doing arithmetic. Ordnance survey maps use meters for every thing - and even the milk in my fridge is labelled 2.27 litres (4 pints). Kids don't learn it in schools and wouldn't know how many chains times by how many furlongs are needed to make up an acre.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User talk:ClemRutter, it may not be the practice of government agencies to use imperial, for various legal reasons, but it IS the normal practice of the British people as a whole. This you would realise if you watched British TV, read British newspapers or mixed with British people. And this isn't just my opinion, it is supported by the recent YouGov survey done for UKMA (UK Metric Association) - see http://www.ukma.org.uk/docs/sam.pdf for the details and UKMA summary. In fact, UKMA, an organisation which tends to exaggerate the level of metrication in the UK, complain that "the basic assumption that underlies Government policy - that metric education in school will lead naturally to a general acceptance of metric units for all purposes - is shown to be incorrect" - that is: the metric system has not yet been accepted by the British people - clearly and plainly put.
Even if we ignore the fact that it is untrue to say "is no longer the 'normal British practice'", why is this article is exempt from WP:UNITS, and why isn't that fact (if it is a fact) made plainly obvious anywhere? And why was my good-faith attempt to change WP:UNITS to say that totally reversed? This needs a serious review and clarification if what you claim is to be credible. Cousin Bluey (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, your interest in this page is fairly recent. You have identified two points: WP:UNITS could be worded better, and you are not prepared to accept the authority of government agencies which for Wikipedia is a reliable source- you prefer an obscure POV. The page you cite is a criticism of government policy within a large website of a single issue organisation- no mention of footpaths or encyclopedia building. The conversation finishes there.
MOSNUM:The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[1]-- Clem Rutter (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also seems unwise to change all the distances in the article from the figures given, which we hope were reliably sourced, into converted figures to be re-converted. If (as is not the case here) it was agreed that they should be displayed with miles first, then the parameter "disp=flip" in {{convert}} would do the trick, without any loss of accuracy. (And I query the initial premise that "Most people who walk in the UK are simply not familiar with km", as a mature rambler myself: most walkers I know are happy to work in either km or miles.) PamD 12:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waymarked/Unwaymarked Routes[edit]

I would find information about which routes are waymarked very useful. Any ideas about how to incorporate this into the existing article ? PeterGrecian 14:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could easily be mentioned where known, someone might have to do a bit of painstaking research to find out for others.

Infoboxes and Maps[edit]

Wouldn't all these paths benefit from having a location infobox? What would it contain?

  • Name
  • Maintaining Organisation
  • Start Point
  • End Point
  • Landranger Map Numbers
  • Category - ie Seriously Fanatic, Fit, Unfit, Afternoon with the Toddlers
  • Time to complete
  • Highest point
  • Lowest point
  • Landscape Encountered
  • Special Features

Wouldn't all these paths benefit from having a symbolic map- showing intersections with other paths. Entry points. A touch of the Wainwright. What should it contain? Maybe that should be in the infobox?


I am dualposting this comment on category and page. ClemRutter 11:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could use a table like that on Tame Valley Canal or a map like that on BCN Main Line or both. See Wikipedia:Railway line template for more on the railway maps, from which the canal maps are derived. Andy Mabbett 11:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I can see that we could use it for Wealdway but the Pennine Way? How much detail? How long would be the optimum length? Would it be useful, or acceptable to walkers? Footpaths go up and down, canals do have locks- do we use similar symbols? Paths can be fp s, bridle, metalled? They can run along rivers to the left/right? Paths have Panoramas, towns to the left/right- easy to do. Lot of work -mmm- I go and sharpen the Inscape! ClemRutter 13:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced about the route map idea. Junctions with other named footpaths are not particularly significant compared to a railway line's junctions with other lines for example; and information about interesting places on the route are better dealt with in prose, which gives more scope for explaining the significance of a particular location. --VinceBowdren 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maps need not be about junctions; they can also show features; see, for example, Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal. Features can still be discussed in the prose.
Lets "brainstorm" the items that might go in an infobox: start point, end point, start point coordinates, end point coordinates, length, date opened, other footpaths joined, counties visited. Any more?
Andy Mabbett 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the model is different- other paths is interesting- like a county border, while a bridge, car park or station is significant. Walking here in Kent is a different pastime to in Edale, or Snowdonia- significantly different information is needed. I don't know. But prose leaves me cold, I can pick up a 1:25000 map and see the country. Can these easily editable symbolic maps or 'routers' give a quick overview of the nature of the walk. I think they can. Given your reservations, any ideas on the example?ClemRutter 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the 'hill' and 'steep hill' icons are a bit vague. A Kent walker is likely to have a different idea of what counts as steep (or even counts as a hill) from a Cumbria walker, for example. Certainly a good OS map is much clearer, but wikipedia is not a map; prose may leave you cold but it is this encyclopaedia's primary format, and can communicate this kind of a-bit-subjective information more clearly than a route map, which gives the impression of being a lot more cut-and-dried than it should be here. --VinceBowdren 06:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, the 'hill' and 'steep hill' icons are a bit vague." - that as a first stab, a 'proof of concept', using existing icons. They could just as easily represent "gradient above (or below) 1 in 5" or "gradient for more (or less) than one mile, or whatever; or there could be a series of icons covering a range of slopes. Andy Mabbett 10:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"prose may leave you cold but it is this encyclopaedia's primary format" study after study has shown that, for writing on the web, text with diagrams and images, rather than simple blocks of text, are more readily absorbed by readers.
Andy Mabbett 10:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of adding an infobox. The basics about the end-points, the distance, the date of origin and so on should of course be included; but I would avoid any categories where the information is difficult to objectively source e.g. Time To Complete, or Landscape Encountered. --VinceBowdren 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take on board objectivity, but to the walker doing a quick wiki, time to complete is useful info, and landscape is easy to determine from existing guidebooks, and helps if you are doing a random wiki to decide your day out. They will be quicker to implement than 'routers' ClemRutter 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Todays Guardian did a 'guide to walks' supplement, based on walks from the pay site, http://www.walkingworld.com. Each walk has a info box.
  • Classification:
  • Distance in km (then miles)
  • Typical duration
  • Height Gain
  • Starting point (name)
  • OS grid reference
  • OS Explorer map #
They then describe the walk, with Walk in a nutshell, why it's special, keep your eyes peeled for, but bear in mind, impress your companions, where to recover afterwards, if its tipping down, how to get there by car, by public transport. They give a map and one photograph. This could give us a few clues.ClemRutter 07:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Example[edit]

Beacon Way
Legend
Southern section

distances in miles

0
 Gentleshaw
(etc)
Staffordshire
West Midlands
border
(hill)
Barr Beacon
(steep hill)
M6
M5
RSPB Sandwell Valley
25
 Sandwell Park Farm

Here's a short example, using canal icons for the southern section of the Beacon Way. Of course, other colours and icons may be more appropriate for paths. Andy Mabbett 21:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to work for 50km? Do we split the walk if it is longer than 100km? I am having a serious look at available icons, I am behind you on the learning curve.ClemRutter 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For longer routes there are two options; they are not mutually exclusive. One is to show the same level of detail, and divide the route into several sections, with a map for each. The other is to have a map for the whole route, but show fewer features. Compare, for example, the whole West Coast Main Line with the Trent Valley Line, a smaller section of it. Bear in mind that new icons can be created as required. Andy Mabbett 10:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is scope for drawing 'routers' at different 'scales' so to speak.
I have done a bit of field work on the Medway Valley Path Yalding- seeing the problems of a 12km simple route- it involved road junctions, raillines and stations, a river, locks, bridges. It twists, and recrossing sig features.
Looking at the Greensand Way article there is already a list of places that could become a 'router'.ClemRutter 07:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did anything come of this? Andy Mabbett 13:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Panic. I have looked at de:Formatvorlage Bahnstrecke and Railway line template and there are 20 basic icons that need to be reworked- green seems to be the best colour. We can start with one column only for in open country- then should add a second for in built up areas. The symbol names should be prefixed with F- for Füssweg which in English will be Footpath. This will mean that the routers can be prototyped with the original Bahnstrecke icons- and then easily edited over. Convention is to use German abbreviation for icons, I am easy with that.Addition icons will be needed rivers, brook, Bach that run alongside, FBachL, FBachR, a lake sea See to right, Left etc. Towns-Stadte Good view, Aussichtpunkte. We need crossings- Roads, Railways,Rivers, Railways. We also need gradient indicators, and other Blue information icons Hospital, Parking, Antiquity, Camping, Informationpoint, Nota bene. using the letter H,P,A,C,I,!. Technically this just takes time but is easy.
The BS-daten Template will be adequate to use.
Different walks will require different levels of detail. The longer the path- the more vague it can be and use fewer symbols- so the more importannt will be the easiest to code.
Panic. The scale of the task of providing a router for each UK long distance and leisure path.
I have had no further indication whether this will be wanted or not by the general community- so is it worth while doing.
Just short of time. ClemRutter 16:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds great. I think diagrams like this would be an extremely useful addition to the current content for many pages.
Perhaps it's also worth doing this in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Hiking Trails, since diagrams like these would be useful internationally too.
I see there's already a post (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hiking Trails#Diagrams) mentioning a couple of Canadian trails which already have diagrams using the rail symbols. --David Edgar 17:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted greeting there, they are in a Backpacking project- and are discussing infoboxes too.ClemRutter 18:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The specific examples are Galloping Goose Regional Trail and Lochside Regional Trail. They're particularly significant as bicycle paths, so I displayed major road crossings, and are notable as intermunicipal trails, so I displayed those boundaries when I could figure them out. This suggests to me that each path will have different diagram requirements based on use, length, location, etc. My feeling is that the railway icons were quite adequate, the only things obviously missing were gradient (as discussed above) and path surface (which is particularly significant for urban and bicycle paths, although there are also grading systems for hiking, eg Yosemite Decimal System). Vagary 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beacon Way
Legend
Southern section

distances in miles

0
 Gentleshaw
(etc)
Staffordshire
West Midlands
border
(hill)
Barr Beacon
(steep hill)
M6
M5
RSPB Sandwell Valley
25
 Sandwell Park Farm

I made a start at creating some icons in green. I created an initial table at User:David Edgar/Footpath legend. Using these, I made an adaptation of the example above, shown on the right.
(I didn't have all of the relevant icons ready yet, so I replaced missing ones with straight icons. You should still get the general idea.)

I've added a few more: abbreviations obvious. Put a commons link to FPIcons, new category on the legend page and here.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to FPIcons.

I realised too late that it should have been FPicons.ClemRutter 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree slightly with the idea that all the names must be in German. It seems to me that this is only because of the original source of the icons. For more recent icons in Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/watercourses, for example, the names have been in English - Lock, Gate, Stair, Dry, Toll etc. etc. It's only icons of the same design but a different colour which have kept their original primary name (with a prefix letter added).

One particular icon I would like added for footpaths is one for the summit of a hill. Perhaps a trig-point-like symbol?

Any comments? If it's useful, feel free to edit User:David Edgar/Footpath legend and add / convert new icons. --David Edgar 19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great start! I agree with you about the English naming: the railway icons started as a direct conversion and there's still some desire to stay synchronized with the German project, but we should assume that these are going to be moved to Commons, which is English by default.
I have come up with a way of making the icons colour-neutral. It's more technologically complex, so please feel free to disregard it if you don't think it would offer significant labour-savings, but I thought I should mention it...
I believe with footpaths the path itself is significant. "This part is inclined", "this part is steeply inclined", "this part is paved", "this part goes through a wooded area", etc. So we should put some thought into expanding the straight section icons, eg:   (ftSTR)   (fLSTR)   (gSTR). Vagary 20:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if this is a goer.
Deutsch/English/Denglish-mir ist egal! Not an issue- just trying to be compatible- just seems sensible to stick to the name prefix system, and its only abbreviations most of which are the same.
The path- There are two types of path (UK) footpaths for walkers and bridleways for walkers, horses and other riders- to a walker the change from footpath to bp is an important consideration- to a horseman it is the difference between allowed and not allowed. I suspect mountain bikers have a similar opinion- do we need to show both- how does this internationalise. I was thinking dark green/ light green but couldn't decide which way round- though if the distinction is not important it should default to dark as this looks clearer. (I'm thinking of printouts too.)
For gradient there seems to be several ways to proceed. As I have said, I was thinking of chevrons like the lock symbol.A double for 1:3 and a single for 1:5 (but this could be adapted meaning very steep and steep- which would vary in context). The German Bahn site has a section for Mountain lines where a spot height is given in a column to the right of the track. This seems simple, effective and could be used on footpaths.
The colour of green needs to be stated in #rrggbb before anything else is done- reds and blues can be taken from canals and railways.
Glancing at the color-neutral link- is it more difficult for the author writing the router or just the icon maker? Can it be done in Inkscape?
I can do a few of the extra symbols fairly quickly if I am not distracted.
ClemRutter 23:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the path types, why don't we keep the meaning vague or even defined on a regional basis? If necessary, we could have different legends for regions, or denote it in footnotes. The same with gradients, anything flexible is fine: after a few dozen diagrams have been done we'll have a better idea of what works and what doesn't.
The colour-neutral thing could be done seamlessly (ie: the router would do nothing differently) if we forked {{BS}}. Which we should probably do anyway - I'm not sure why the waterways people write {{BS|uBHF|...}} instead of {{BSu|BHF|...}} - lets make {{BSf}} that automatically prefixes the 'f' (or whatever we're using). I used Inkscape to make my examples, so it's certainly the right tool for the job. ;) I've just been waiting for some encouragement to move forward on this, how about I convert your icons and then everybody can look it over? Vagary 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. I like the idea of colour-neutral though find the name clumbersome- paths can go through woodland, openfield, along a canal, urban and can be path-footpath-bridleway and if striping the path could allow path-footpath-bridleway. Expandable paths also seems to have more relevance to paths than rail so need to be investigated. As for the templates, while roads need a distance column, for complete flexibility, paths sometimes need columns for distance, height, compass direction, path name/number etc.
Do we need to setup a policy page to gather together these ideas- if so where? Or is it too soon. There seem to be many footpath stubs- and national cycle network stubs which seem to have little unity. Will routers be used? Are there enough editors willing to use them? If not is it worth continuing as an intellectual exercise?ClemRutter 10:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been pointed to this discussion as part of a major piece of work on the South West Coast Path. I like the idea in principle (& have used v similar diagrams for canals) but for the South West Coast Path which stretches for 630 miles (1014 km) I don't think it would be viable?— Rod talk 14:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, but looking at the wealdway 'router'example and the Wealdway page which doesn't display the router. The page lacks much of the information contains in the 'Router' and would be better with it. Since then the issue of geocoding locations has become more relevant- shouldn't all footpath pages include inline geocodes for each town mentioned? The South West Coast Path would benefit from mileage from start information- and intersections with other paths/ bus routes- warnings about particularly steep bits- spots with the best views. The amount of work to do this would be equally awe inspiring. Maybe many sections as discussed above? There is the idea of expanding/contracting sections which I haven't investigated? Just a thought.ClemRutter (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wealdway[edit]

Footpath Icons[edit]

Wealdway[2]
Legend
in Kent and East Sussex
Landranger Maps 178, 188, 199.
Start-point TQ650745
End-point TV 590956
mi
elev
in m
0
 Gravesend
Saxon Shore Way
2
  A2  Tollgate
2
 Sole Street  B2009 
7
 Luddesdown
9
 North Downs Way & Pilgrims Way
(scarp slope) near Trottiscliffe
 M20 
 A20 
15
 Platt
Meresworth Woods
Greensand Way
19
 West Peckham
Greensand Way
 A26 
23
 Barnes Street
 
6 miles along
River Medway tow path
 
28
 Tonbridge  A26  A225 
Hayesden (leave River Medway)
 A26  Tonbridge bypass
33
 Modest Corner
37
 Fordcombe  B2188  Tunbridge Wells
38
 Stone Cross  A264  Tunbridge Wells
Sussex Border Path
River Medway
41
 Withyha
Five Hundred Acre Wood
with Winnie the Pooh connections
 Top of Ashdown Forest
240
 Camp Hill
210
Browns Brook Cottage
130
 A26  Crowborough to Uckfield
Buxted Park
River Uck, Hempstead Mill
55
 Blackboys  B2012  YHA
60
 East Hoathly  A22 
Gun Hill
69
67
Horsebridge on
on River Cuckmere
 A271 
16
  A22 
69
 Upper Dicker
76
 Arlington
 A27 
74
 Wilmington
33
130
 Long Man of Wilmington
76
 Jevington
Willingdon Hill
210
80
 Eastbourne Start of Wealdway
100
 South Downs Way
82
 Beachy Head
163
mi
elev
in m

This was an interesting exercise. I started with the restricted icon set, and just created the icons as I needed them. It is basically North South. I started putting in the towns/villages and immediately saw that paths avoid big settlements on principal eg Tunbridge Wells. But these can go into comment. Also, most settlements also have notable roads going through them- icon needed and created. The Canals red circle 'Feature to left or right' could be used but the green diamond seemed better for 'country features', and could be used to links to other paths. Using the code u uu d dd for the chevrons was not too bright as up can mean up hill or up the map. Water was a problem- straight lines are OK for canals and navigations but for small brooks and streams I just lifted an icon from BRÜCKE and Ctrl-D and Flipped. Many symbols converge at the nodes- towns, roads, rivers and crossing footpaths- so some must be artificially offset. There is a need for an altitude column but direction is superfluous. The header can be an infobox. And now I am open to comments. ClemRutter 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. How about v vv n nn for chevrons, since they're not being used for anything else that I'm aware of? Here is the same thing with colour-neutral icons: User:Vagary/Footpath Icons. (Which are defined using arbitrary compositions at {{BSf}}. My rivers could use some work...) Vagary 00:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rivers fine- they will combine nicely with Canals/UBahn symbols for any artist that wants to to do lacework with rivers. I don't like v vv n nn the n is too obtuse. I think that it needs to reflect the concept of ascending descending, as you noticed at Cuckmere I got them the wrong way round (now changed). As the editor is working from top to bottom of the sheet, he will know that if he is at a peak and must descent or a river and must ascend. I think that is easier than trying to remember that the pointed end of the n is the high point. (This also retains a German explanation- Aufsteigen to climb and darunter meaning below. I know this may sound weird but as a German speaker, when I am typing in the Icon abbreviations such as KRZ and STR- it flips my thinking into German- and it is easier to mentally stay there!) So we can have a aa d dd. ClemRutter 19:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not upto speed with template writing or indeed table writing, but I think the template must have two icon columns as many path ways split- e.g. North Downs Way and a column for altitude.ClemRutter 19:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding/Contracting could have applications and should be implemented- but I think it is a danger to get down to field level detail- others may disagree and be willing to create icons for gates and quality of grass but I think Ordnance Survey got there first. ClemRutter 19:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple columns and expanding/contracting are both generalized to the templates shared between all WP:RDT subprojects, so it's up to individual footpath diagram editors to take them or leave them. The problem with initializing Aufsteigen for the chevrons is that 'a' is also used for Anfang; but I agree that semantic naming is preferable to syntactic naming (based on chevron shape). Doing compression like this is destined to be a pain in the ass, maybe we should just go with STRascend, STRdescend, STRstart, and STRend and be done with it. :( Vagary 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have disambiguated Gravesend on this map. Martin451 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just how short can long be?[edit]

I've just been tweaking an article called Great Eastern Pingo Trail in Norfolk. The 'official' website of the council calls it a long distance footpath -its 8 miles long. To me that's far too short and I suspect others here may agree - but are we out of touch with the modern definition of a long walk?

As a second issue, there seems to be not UK category for walks other than long ones, so this articulate resides in Category:Hiking trails in Europe. Do we need a category for day walks?--JBellis 12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

50km is mentioned in a couple of places including Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_UK#Other_UK_long-distance_pathsas a cutoff for "long-distance". See below for further reply. PamD 14:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA long-distance path[edit]

Just to let you know that Leeds Country Way has been passed as a Good Article. Are there any other paths which are GA, or even FA? I had problems finding where to put it in the WP:GAC nominations page, would have used "Geography/Miscellaneous" if it had existed, went eventually for "Everyday life/Recreation/Miscellaneous". PamD 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

categories[edit]

There are a couple of Categories already in existence which have the name of a path, eg category:Cleveland Way. I wonder whether these would be better named as "Places on the Cleveland Way" etc? Any thoughts, before these categories proliferate? There are only a handful at present, see Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom. I'll post this comment on the category page, but suggest we concentrate any discussion onto this page. PamD 14:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just found this, after asking a similar question somewhere else (temporarily forgotten where!) and getting no response. I have since created Category:Monarch's Way and so far populated it with places in Sussex and Hampshire (having a breather as it's a long way to Worcester and nearly all places I've done so far are very small and in need of major editing which greatly slows things down but makes the exercise much more useful). It does not look as though you got a response to your idea. I agree with your suggestion, but I'm wincing at the thought of editing them all again! I don't suppose there is a tool which would cause a category-rename to edit all the links to it? Also the categories are in a mess - someone started new sub-categories Category:Long-distance footpaths in England etc and began to move paths from the UK parent cat but stopped - I joined in with Monarch's Way. This needs a task force! Pterre (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thought - one meets one or two, erm, strict interpreters of language on Wikipedia who will probably have nothing better to do than start removing "Category:Places on XX" from hills etc on the grounds that they are not "places". Pterre (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to rename a category - see WP:CFD. (I didn't find this until I'd edited every entry from Category:Girls schools in England to add the apostrophe - then I found it and got the corresponding boys' category and a couple of other countries' categories done the easy way!) I note from your userboxes that you also believe in punctuation. I also have a little personal campaign against "could of" for "could have" and similar, using WP:AWB to do an occasional rescue mission, inspired by WP:TYPO.
As for the "place" query... I suppose we could use "Route of..." but I don't like it much. I'd say stick with "Places on.." until/unless anyone else comments? We could acknowledge on the Category page that "places is used to encompass hills and other entities encountered along the route as well as settlements and other locations" or something on those lines. There doesn't seem to be much interest in discussion on this page, and even WP Talk:WikiProject Hiking Trails isn't very active (they're all out walking?). I haven't checked around to find out whether there are any "Places on..." or similar categories for any US or other hiking trails, as precedent. PamD (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think these categories need official discussion? I created "Monarch's Way" a couple of weeks ago and no one else has touched it so I can't see huge howls of protest if it gets changed to "Places on the Monarch's Way". Or should than be "Places on The Monarch's Way"? Pterre (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New category "Walking in the UK" needed?[edit]

This began as a reply to the second point under "How long is long" above, but grew rather and seemed to merit a new heading as a topic for discussion:

Perhaps we need a category for recreational walking in the UK in general (of which long-distance paths could be a subcat). Looking at category:walking I wonder whether we should create category:Walking in the UK, with a category note which points out that this is not about the sport of racewalking. Subcats would include our own LDPs, and also the existing category:Walking in London, and members of the category would be various short paths (such as Ingleton Waterfalls Trail, the first notable short walk which came to mind), UK walking organisations (eg Ramblers Association), and Hillwalking (which is exclusively UK in scope!) etc. This cat would be a subcat of category:walking, and also of Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom (and anything on sport/recreation/leisure in UK, though I can't find such categories on a quick flip round). Any thoughts? PamD 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation of footpaths[edit]

Most paths in the UK are in Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom (or its sub-categories), which is a sub-category of Category:Hiking trails in Europe. But some are not, mostly because they are too short to be called long-distance. They are scattered around in Category:Recreational walks in England, Category:Walking in London and Category:Footpaths, none of which is in the hierarchy of categories below Category:Hiking trails in Europe. I suggest one of two things:

  1. Rename Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom Category:Footpaths in the United Kingdom (with similar renaming of the sub-cats) and put everything in there (or its sub-cats)
  2. Create a new category Category:Footpaths in the United Kingdom between Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom and Category:Hiking trails in Europe, with sub-cats for England, Wales and Scotland, and put in there the categories for footpaths in individual counties, the recreational path pages, a new Category:Footpaths in London and some of the pages now in Category:Footpaths. This would be analogous to the hierachy for categorization of US trails, and would be my preference. This raises again the question raised above of what is "long-distance". My thought is that the principle should be that long-distance paths are those used for multi-day walks.

Any views? --Mhockey (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now done (option 2)--Mhockey (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icons with water[edit]

Would there be any objections if I redrew the icons
  (fWBANKl)   (fWBANKllf)   (fWBANKlrg)   (fWBANKr)   (fWBANKrlg)   (fWBANKrrf)   (fWFORD) &   (fWFORDq)
to match the watercourse on   (fWBRÜCKE2), which is consistent with the rest of the water icons set? Useddenim (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've the same thoughts so, like the famous sport clothing brand say; Just do it. --Civilspanaren (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Useddenim (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pennine Journey[edit]

Hi PamD, please see this article Pennine Journey. The walk is annotated on OS Maps and I think the article is reasonably cited. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The joy of all things Sorry: I was going on my knowledge of AW's book, and didn't even follow the link to check and discover its current status. Have self-reverted. Comes of looking at watchlist on a phone. Apologies. PamD 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PamD No worries, thanks for the revert. Happy editing. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1208259488"