Signing Diverted Paths

FP sign 2 (1 of 1)

Came across this rather helpful sign up in Wensleydale this week. Seems like the Dales National Park were miles ahead of many local authorities back in 1986!

Signage following a legitimate diversion or closure of a public footpath is crucial and should be specified by the highway authority in any works agreed with the landowners.  Clear waymarking of the new route saves inadvertent trespass by the public which is a positive for walkers and landowners alike.

It doesn’t happen here in Kirklees of course and walkers can be left scratching their heads in a no man’s land between a legitimately closed path  with no obvious new route to follow.

To compound this issue it would seem many newly diverted paths which Kirklees have a maintenance liability for are routinely neglected. Holmfirth Footpath 131 is a good example having being diverted twice over a short length. Neither diversion is adequately signed and both are choked with vegetation. Interestingly both these diversions illustrate why enclosing paths between fencing is not a bright idea.

HOL 131 vegetation (1 of 1)
Holmfirth Footpath 131 diverted section. No waymarks or maintenance.
HOL 131 vegetation 2 (1 of 1)
Holmfirth Footpath 131 second diverted section is without waymarks or any maintenance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s