logo for rowmaps web site rowmaps

these web pages
are being produced by
Barry Cornelius

Follow me at http://twitter.com/rowmaps







Problem with CC/334/FP28X or Neston FP28

A map is shown below. The underlying map is an Ordnance Survey 1:25000 map that has been produced by Bing. On the underlying map, public rights of way (PROW) are indicated by dashed green lines. Solid lines have been superimposed on top of the underlying map (and will usually hide these dashed green lines). A solid red line signifies a footpath, a solid magenta line signfies a bridleway, a solid green line signifies a restricted byway and a solid blue line signifies a byway open to all traffic (BOAT). These solid lines have been produced from data obtained from the Council of Cheshire West and Chester (CC) and from the Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council (WR). You can click on a solid line to get more details about that PROW. You can click on the + and - buttons to zoom in/out.

There are bridleways on both the right-hand side of the map and the left-hand side of the map. And a footpath runs between these bridleways. My guess is that this footpath straddles the boundary between CC and WR.

Here are some details. At the top right, from Benty Heath Lane there is a bridleway (CC/334/BR66/1) that runs SW to a junction. At the junction, the bridleway turns SE whereas a footpath continues SW. To begin with, this is footpath CC/334/FP28X/1. It is 0.547K long and goes from SJ335790 (53.30454,-2.99795)  to SJ331787 (53.30169,-3.00452). There is then a gap in the red line. There is then another red line that is CC/334/FP28X/2. This is 0.056K long and goes from SJ330787 (53.30138,-3.00544) to SJ330787 (53.30120,-3.00624). There is then another gap in the red line. There is then a final red line that is CC/334/FP28X/3. This is 0.053K long and goes from SJ327786 (53.30029,-3.01008) to SJ327786 (53.30015,-3.01084). At its end, this footpath meets a bridleway at a T-junction. At this T-junction, bridleway WR/43 goes North and bridleway CC/334/BR27X/1 goes South towards Mill Lane.

The problem is the two gaps in the footpath. From the lack of data from CC, I'm guessing that this is because CC think the gaps are in WR.

  1. is there a need for WR to include the footpath in their PROW data?
  2. have WR instead included this path in their list of streets?
  3. do CC and WR disagree on the line of the boundary between CC and WR?

show map