UKC

I was running an event today, the OMM Lite from Grasmere, I chose to run a route which went through Bayesbrown campsite in Langdale, I was running South through the site towards the farmhouse, and the farmer there turned me round at the farmhouse telling me it was private land.

I'm assuming he is within his rights to restrict access, but as this route has been used for generations (?) does that infer any access rights?

Has anyone else had issues on this route?

Is the farmer just grumpy about organised events?

I'm not sure that I or any of the other runners who were turned round today will ever stay at his campsite again, so it seems an odd way to go about things.

I'm pretty sure the campsite is managed by the farmers wife and she is an active member of Ambleside AC, so surprised he's being grumpy towards runners. Maybe it is that he's just having a bad day, or maybe there's been a problem with folk on their land recently. Or maybe a load of runners came through his farm today, clearly in a race, and he wasn't informed in advance.

Tough conditions to be up on the tops today, hope everyone did well and is now off the hill.

I'm assuming when you say you were running you mean you were the organiser rather than a participant?

I'm not up on English access laws but if the farmer wasn't asked and you/the organisers assumed to have X number of people running through what is (last time I looked) a campsite, a working farm and a home then my sympathy would be with them. You probably ought to clarify this point.

FWIW I've stayed at Baysbrown and walked through it a few times over the years and never had any issues with the owners.

Just a quick look on a map shows no PROW running through baysbrowns heading South. 

The cumbrian way heads roughly W to East. And the Bridleway to the south is similar. 

It's not on access land so you have to stick to public rights of way. Maybe he's pissed off organisers assume it's okay because it's always been done that way. That would be my guess 

If a path isn't a PROW but is well used then it might be that a public right has been acquired over time. Anyone can apply to their local council to have this investigated further (or the LDNPA in this instance), but be warned that it is a lengthy process and won't necessarily result in a formal PROW being recognised.

I was a participant, not the organiser.  

Right. I would find that pretty annoying but it would be worth asking the organisers, outside of actual legal access. 
 

It could be something as simple as the farmer having something on that day which would be hindered by having loads of people running through the farm. 

Even if it was Access Land the open access doesn't extend to organised events.

OMM Lite Rules:
7. Routes– This is NOT an open access event.  All competitors must keep to footpaths/bridleways/byways.

If a running/cycling time trail (not race)  event keeps to designated public rights of way then that is usually ok but it's always good practice for event organisers to liaise with landowners beforehand. 

I've just had a look at the map for the event online.  

It appears to indicate a path through the farm that is not a RoW,  I think I would be inclined to take umbrage with the organisers rather than the farmer.

I think the nature of the event is that the participants plan their own route and as stated by Summit Else, it's up to the participants to avoid paths on private land.

That appears to be correct but surely the organisers should ensure that their maps provide you with the information that is required to comply with the rules?

Seems a bit weird.  Why should he have to allow access to private land for you to chose his campsite?

Have you got a link to the map?  On an OS map it is shown as a track but not a right of way.  I had a brief look on the site but it showed an OS 1:25K map for the OMM Lite.

I assume that the provided maps indicate public paths, etc. and that participants should stick to those to avoid breaking the rules of the event.

That is exactly what I would assume.

Unfortunately it does not seem to be correct in this instance.

https://omm-lite-long-day2-2025.legendstracking.com/

That's using Harvey's mapping. It doesn't seem to show the route as an overlay. It does show a track through the campsite, but as their legend says, marked tracks do not indicate right of way. The only overlay seems to be the positions of 'points features'.

https://www.harveymaps.co.uk/acatalog/SW_legend.pdf

That is pretty much what you would expect for a score event?

If a course layout is likely to entice runners to use tracks or paths that are not RoWs it would seem sensible to mark them as out of bounds.

The paved road that runs from the entrance of Baysbrown to the farmhouse is not a PRoW. The quickest route (from looking at the OMM map points) would be round through the slate quarry if you were sticking to PRoW.

As others have said, the farmer/owner has always been a nice chap and I have spoken to him many times. He has done a few fell runs himself and his wife also runs. That said, having an organised event running through his property with no prior knowledge or agreement would likely annoy most.

This seems to be an event organiser error, or a map reading error on the part of the participant and feel that any anger towards the farmer is harsh.

Thanks.  That's just a Harvey map.  Those don't always appear to indicate rights of way (which is a bit of an omission!)

Add that to the list of reasons I'm not a fan of Harvey maps I guess!

Indeed. Any course planner (even score) should consider likely route choices and out of bounds, no access etc.. should be marked as such. Plenty planners will even mark a right of way as out of bounds to induce more route choices.

OS maps don't always indicate every ROW either, the definitive map will be with the council.

We asked OS to remove a ROW from their digital mapping because it was leading people up (or down) a dangerous gully with no path. They were pretty prompt about doing so.

It is. But you seemed to be suggesting that the map showed a route (planned by the organisers?) through the campsite. Whereas it shows no route at all:

It's unfortunate that they have partnered with Harvey's, as their mapping does not indicate PRoW status, unlike OS mapping. It seems that they previously used OS mapping.

I can understand why you did that. There are also I believe distinctions, an OS marked RoW doesn't necessarily mean you'll have a visible path on the ground. A non RoW path marked visible on the ground by OS was at least visible at the time of mapping, but doesn't mean you can access it. 

Entertaining fact, I got caught out by that at the weekend having no more than about half an hour earlier explained it to someone else!

I believe the OS were at one point considering removing all PRoW markings in access land areas to avoid that confusion.  However it was I think decided otherwise because access rules on PRoWs differ from access land, in particular the National Trust requires advance consent and risk assessment submission for large organised activities on their land (but they can't stipulate that if you're on a PRoW) and even worse Milton Keynes Parks Trust stipulates it for organised activities of *any* size, even a Scout Troop going out for an evening bimble.

Harvey maps however appear not to show PRoWs outside of access land in many cases, which is (like in this case) grossly misleading and makes their maps more than a little bit useless for valley walking.

Fair point though they do indicate most of them, including those along Great Langdale.

Yeah it's confusing to the un/initiated, especially as practices vary across mappers. 

On the start line it was made clear that this rule had been extended to include "any paths or trods on the ground where it is clear other people have been".  

The mapping wasn't clear if the track through the campsite was a road/track/right of way, so there was no way to tell from the mapping.  

Some roads were marked as out of bounds, this one wasn't.  

Sounds like it would be wise for the course planner to issue a quick apology and spin around to the farmer and also apologise if he had undue extra footfall. This measure might result him saying ok you can run through next, but chat with us first. Face to face works way better. 

I haven't posted the full story here, I just kept it to very minimum facts about the interaction - not wanting to publicly post the full details.  Please don't judge or condem how I should feel without the full information.

You pretty much asked people to judge with the OP!!

The first bit is obviously fine on the fell but not below the fell wall, otherwise you go up any garden path! 

Having a scoring thing on the bridge below the farm and then one above the farm, I’m assuming you weren’t the only person to go through…

That is an extraordinarily clumsy thing for an event organiser to announce if they haven't sought permission from the relevant landowners.

I can see exactly how you came to use the path/track that is marked on the map bur the organiser shouldn't really have placed you in that position.

Harvey’s, in the 1:40k flavour, has been the choice on mountain marathons, and their spin of events, for ages. I have never had one that didn’t show PROWs?

https://www.harveymaps.co.uk/acatalog/SW_legend.pdf

The event map showed the track in question as an unfenced vehicle track, not a path.

When does a public road become a private track? 

If there are no signs indicating that the land is private how does anyone judge if they are able to run or walk down a road or a track to access a PROW?  

Maybe the question is the other way round?

When does a track become a public road?

If using the OS map to navigate I wouldn't choose to use that one myself. Given the organisers choice of map for the event they probably ought to have marked the map in order to avoid confusion.

Maps? Abundantly clear on the OS which tracks in Langdale are RoW and which aren’t. From Galpinos post above sounds like this wouldn’t have been an issue if they’d used a better Harvey base map too?

This is why it's always wise for course planners to get out on the ground, run the probably route choices. Check the currency of the map, any quirks like surprise building or road works, an electric fence etc..

The onus is on users of the countryside to know where they are allowed to go, and on councils to sign PROWs, not on landowners to put up private signs where th public isn't allowed to go. This is why all PROWs should have a roadside signpost plus small coloured arrows along them in places where it would be easy to get lost. Admittedly, in the case of very minor tarmac public roads which don't have to be signed by the council it can be hard to tell if these are public or private and many landowners realise the only sensible thing they can do is put up a "private road" sign.

I think this is the bit I didn't realise before yesterday.  If I see a road I am happy to run along it unless I see a "private road" sign, if I see a path, I would normally assume that I can't go along it unless it was marked as a PROW.  I saw this as a road, so assumed it was ok - perhaps the organisers assumed the same.

I would say this is pretty poor route planning from the organizers. The "obvious" route is through the farm (though how were you intending to get to open access land?) and using PRoW to get to open access land would have taken a more circuitous route so woul dbe less desirable, especially on tired legs.

They should have either discussed it with the owner and got their consent (though again, getting to open access land is not direct and this may have led to people free-styling up the hill and over walls) or marked it as out of bounds.

As a point of interest, was the map provided the same as the overlay on the digital map linked? I would assume not, and that the paper race map would have shown both PRoW and CRoW land.

You’ve done well to not have some ‘difficult conversations’ with farmers and other land owners if you’ve just been running up dirt tracks assuming you have access due to the lack of ‘private’ signs! 

I'm pretty sure the actual paper map given to competitors would not be the same as the digital overlay used on the tracking site. They are normally custom printed and would show PRoW and CRoW land (though I have asked the OP this just to confirm).

That's the problem of using a phone to read PDFs; should have scrolled right.

I don't use Harvey's maps; have never got on with them for some reason.

The tracking site Tim linked appears to me to be using Harvey's mapping, but the map presented doesn't appear to be using the PRoW annotation shown in the legend, even for the tracks N and S of the campsite. Is the tracking site mapping not Harvey's, or is it some other scale that doesn't show PRoWs?

Just checked my Harvey Ultramap (I said I didn't like them and I don't, but I do have a full set of those!) and that does seem to show PRoWs, though notably it doesn't call out the permissive path that runs along to where that campsite path is as something different from the path through the campsite.

The one linked appears to be even simpler (it is Harvey mapping but not the 1:40K version) and lacks them almost entirely.  Odd.

(I do still think nothing beats OS 1:25K for detail and clarity!)

Here's a photo of the section of the map provided to competitors.

Most dirt tracks round here don't go anywhere other than the farmhouse - and no, I've not been running up and down them.

That's the same as the very basic Harvey map linked to in the tracking above.  Looks like the organisers cheaped out somewhat in not even going for the Ultramap spec (designed for runners, much as I don't overly like them!) which at least does include PRoWs!

I've just checked: OS maps were used in 2024.

Just reached for my Cheviot Hills Harvey map which has English content and it is covered with coloured strings of dots representing rights of way. 

First map other than forest orienteering maps, produced by Harveys was the Howgills at 1:40k for the 1977 Mountain Marathon. I have a copy which I used to use in the area. 

I do still think nothing beats OS 1:25K for detail and clarity!)

Too much clutter. And that horrible purple line they use everywhere.  Still pretty good maps though.

I'd say the relevant 1:25 extract is quite a bit clearer that the Harveys excerpt above 

Harvey maps: like Fischer-Price "baby's first map'. No subtlety. No detail...

Certainly more useful, as it both indicates that the campsite path isn't a PRoW and indicates the permissive access to the path going to the south east of it.  Harvey does neither.

I find the Harvey maps more cluttered to be honest, partly because they use such dark lines for contours.

To an extent it's what you're used to though, and the Harvey map is probably better than an OS 1:50K in terms of useful detail.  I guess it's only recent that OS have had full national coverage with 1:25K, it used to be quite limited.

My Ultramaps are as well - though they don't mark that permissive path*.  It's odd that this one isn't.  Did they perhaps cheap out by buying the lowest grade of Harvey mapping?

* Is that the one that has a full-fat road sign on it pointing to Langdale?  I think it is?

I think that might be slightly harsh even though I don't like them very much!  But I do find they lack the kind of detail I want when navigating in poor visibility and the likes such as field boundaries/fences.  I know these aren't 100% accurate as they can move, but stuff like dry stone walls rarely do and coupled with other stuff they can be very useful.

You must be ancient

In over 40 years of walking and climbing I don't think I have ever encountered an area that wasn't covered by OS 1:25k mapping.

It's been available for the whole UK since the 1980s! (and before that at some comparable imperial scale.)

Swiss 1:25k are exceptional.

I think that Neil may mean ‘easily available in sheets covering a large area’. All areas were covered previously but you used to have to buy sheets covering quite a small area, and only available from major OS stockists.

Yeah, the Outdoor Leisure maps only covering the National Parks were the main 1:25K ones.  I do remember the green ones now you mention it but they were indeed expensive and covered only a small area so weren't that useful for walkers.  And 1:25K is still useful for lowland walking as field boundaries can really help in locating stuff like well hidden stiles.

Less contour detail, tent logos and solid green diamonds.  Still clearer than a lot of 1:25k extracts. OS is great for RoW following in agricultural land but on the hill, I prefer the orienteering style of mapping.   It looks like the event used an extract without RoWs on it - whoopsie!

1:25k mapping was incomplete until the 1980s. The blue provisional edition 10*10km squares was incomplete, much of the Highlands was missing, but they tended to get the rather splendid second series mapping from the 1960s onwards. These were like the current maps but only covered two hectads 20km * 10km.  I have a fair stash of them and the arrival of these maps led to quite a few revisions to the bagging lists.  Beinn Tealach for instance appeared at 915m when the 1:25k map came out for the area west of Megaidh.  Also the correct Ben a' Choinn top appeared on the map first published in 1983.   Golden times for map geeking, also the era of beautiful scribed orienteering maps.

On a previous thread some said "once you've used a Harvey map on Skye you'll never go back" Which was hilariously ambiguous.

What's Harvey like for paths on Scottish mountains?  A curiosity of Scotland is that well defined paths (not RoWs) on mountains are often not marked on OS - the only place I've noticed that in England and Wales is Moel Siabod which is covered in paths but most of them are missing from OS mapping.

Orienteering map ethos - they map paths if paths exist.  They also often include core paths and on the Pentlands sheet - which is definitely the best Pentland map other than the ESOC one of the north end, they mark the signposted network of the regional park.

A lot of Scottish hill paths are recent erosion scars. The OS have yet to catch up.  Mind one of the joys of the arrival of the 1980s 1:25k maps was that a lot of stalkers paths  missing from the 1" or 1:50k mapping turned up. Still plenty missing, or mapped Victorian paths long since lost to the heather.

I was responding to Fat Bumbly's post, in a similar exaggerated manner...

That is poor. Having recently done the GL3D, they had Harveys at 1:40k with PRoW marked. Bit of a fail from OMM here!

I love an OS 1:25k but for running across the hills, it's too much detail on too small a scale for the speed you are covering the ground*, OS 1:50 doesn't have the detail you need and the Harvey's 1:40k really hits the spot. I like the Harvey's/BMC mountain maps too. The OS 1:25k does really shine in the lowlands with farm/field boundaries and PRoWs.

*at the start of the event, normally by the end it is a depressingly large scale as I am moving at the speed of a snail!

That would be the old two and a half inches to the mile!  I can remember ordering one for the Stanhope area from the local newsagent there when I was at school as I loved maps.

  The one inch maps could cover a lot of ground.  The 1:50000 maps were quite a revelation when they appeared around 1973 +/-  I always took them to be about one and a quarter inches to the mile.  I seem to remember that they had to be revised as some of the markings caused safety issues

I seem to remember at school we were told you could assert a right of way against a landowner if you were correctly reading a 2 and a half inch map that showed you were on a ROW. Not so with a one inch map apparently.

I'm currently looking at a blue first series 1:25000 map that says it was printed and published in 1956. Unfortunately I can't check the date on an old 2 and a half inch map easily as they are all boxed up somewhere in the attic.

There are lots of old OS maps available to view online via the National Library of Scotland here:

https://maps.nls.uk/os/

It says here that the 'first series' 1:25000 maps covered 80% of the country by 1956.  Everywhere except the Scottish Highlands and Islands.  https://maps.nls.uk/os/25k-gb-1937-61/

There doesn't seem to be any mention of maps at 2.5 inches to the mile though - the older ones seem to jump directly from 1 inch to 6 inches.  Is it possible that that's just what people called 1:25000 maps to differentiate them from a 'one inch' map?
(2.5 inches to the mile would be 1:25344, whereas 1 inch to the mile is 1:63360)

.

The early ones were basically enlarged 1 inch with contours converted to m. This resulted in totally weird contour lines at e.g. 176m

I think that is quite likely - perhaps it was an approximation that made clear the difference in scale.  It was a commonly quoted scale at school int he 60s and 70 though I think I only ever came across 1 inch maps - certainly these were used for exercises on school camps at Otterburn and Warcop. I bought a 1:50000 map as a teenager when they first appeared just because I loved maps and mapreading.  I can remember going a long camping walk round Weardale and Teesdale using my father's linen printed 1 inch map from the late 40s which he'd used for his scouting "First Class Hike" expedition.

"There doesn't seem to be any mention of maps at 2.5 inches to the mile though - the older ones seem to jump directly from 1 inch to 6 inches.  Is it possible that that's just what people called 1:25000 maps to differentiate them from a 'one inch' map?
(2.5 inches to the mile would be 1:25344, whereas 1 inch to the mile is 1:63360)"

Seems they went straight to 1:25k, and further back than I realised

https://maps.nls.uk/os/25k-gb-1937-61/#:~:text=The%201:25%2C000%20'Provisio....

Was that some kind of punishment?

more like an escape from rigoursof school life!

Your school was worse than the midge infested hell that is Otterburn ranges? Wow, you did have it rough!

I thought the compo made a decent change!

I have in front of me a copy of Pathfinder map 121 (Beinn Dearg) dated 1992.  On the front cover it says:

"2½ in to 1 mile ~ 4 cm to 1 km         1:25 000".

I don't know whether that "~" is meant to indicate "approximately" or is just a posh hyphen.  I suspect the former, however, since putting a 30cm ruler across the 1km grid squares, seven grid squares measure discernably less than 28cm.  I make it ~27.5cm, which works out to be a scale of around 1:25400.  So it looks like the Pathfinders were indeed 2½ inches to the mile, whereas the modern Explorers are a genuine 1:25000, as far as can be determined using the unaided human eye and a cheap plastic ruler.

Just to add some confusion, the Pathfinder map states: "Reprinted with the addition of metric contours".  So a map which appears to have been produced to a genuinely imperial scale (albeit one that is less than 1.5% out from the metric equivalent) had been updated to use metric contours.  And we think the US is odd in the half-assed way it goes about being officially metric....  (Then again, we Brits still cling to purchasing beer in pints - a quantity of alcoholic beverage which some Americans seem to find practically inconceivable.  Which IMO is also puzzling, given the outsized containers in which takeaway soft drinks can be purchased over there.)

My dad had the local (west Wolverhampton) 2 1/2 inch to the mile maps. This was before public footpaths were marked on the OS maps, so he took the maps down to the local council offices and inked in the rights of way. He was cross country captain of what was then Wolverhampton Harriers. He used his maps to lead the Saturday training runs, which led t some conflict with local farmers!

From the link above, the Highlands were not mapped at 1:25k until quite late, unlike everywhere else. Could this be a hacked together edition to get something published? My 1:25 maps.from that period are definitely "proper".

Ah, good point.  My Pathfinder 423 for Eyemouth and Grantshouse, marked as 'revised 1983', has the same inscription on the cover as 121 but measures out at precisely 4cm for each 1km grid square.  (And it has metric contours.)

Used the 1:20,000 second series for Kinder back in the 70s.  I had four sheets from memory and vaguely recall

https://maps.nls.uk/view/196185342

SK08 sheet

https://maps.nls.uk/view/196185324