OS maps - public roads?

[ColinB]

I know OS maps say that the presence of a road is no indication of a right of way. However, experience indicates that most roads shown are open to the public. Outside of built up areas roads that are not open to the public are shown in white. But is this correct? I note the road past the Rushmoor Arena Aldershot is coloured yellow but is not open to the public. Is this a mistake by OS, or have I misunderstood what a yellow road signifies?

[c2R]

There's an enormous difference between a road being a public right of way, and being open to the public.

OS maps will tend to show physical roads, but while they may be open to the public, that doesn't necessarily indicate a right of way. Such roads would include many roads around shopping centres, industrial areas, but may also include unadopted roads (which may or may not be a right of way!), or other roads where a @right@ of way is conferred for property access.

All of that leads to this sort of situation, where something clearly is a well used publicly accessible route, but that is signed so as to not confer a right of access over the land: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.7983208 ... 312!8i6656

I'd presume the road is shown in yellow simply because of its width or importance - although you've not said what map/scale you are looking at.

[Nwallace]

Level of access isn't necessarily published on the map, while in England and Wales the Footpaths, Bridleways and BOATs are distinctly marked the permissive status of a road is left in doubt.

In Scotland it's dependent on whether there's a "Private" sign on the road as to whether you're allowed on it as roads are excluded from land access law.

[Steven]

I know OS maps say that the presence of a road is no indication of a right of way.

Indeed. A Special Road such as a motorway, for example, is not a right of way by definition, but is clearly shown as a road on OS maps.

There is no real difference between a narrow yellow road and a white road on Landrangers, whether they be in an urban or rural setting - white are simply what the OS considers to be less important.

[nowster]

In some circumstances, a yellow road is metalled and a white one is not.

[yen_powell]

I've ridden unclassified grassed public roads in south Wales that weren't even shown on the OS 1:50,000 Landranger map. There was just white space where they were. If the local Trail Riders Fellowship rep hadn't marked my map I wouldn't have even known they could be ridden legally. You had to slide 4 or 5 lengths of wood out of horse shoes driven into the gate posts which blocked each end for livestock control and refit them afterwards before riding along them.

The OS have started putting them on the maps now, usually with little green dots showing 'other right of way' or something similar on the key.

[FosseWay]

There is no real difference between a narrow yellow road and a white road on Landrangers, whether they be in an urban or rural setting - white are simply what the OS considers to be less important.

There is no 100% legally watertight difference, certainly. But in practice, the vast majority of OS yellow roads and B-roads, and most A-roads that are on their original alignment and haven't been A55-ed, will be highways along which the public may proceed on foot without hindrance. That is not always the case with white roads - in rural areas, the OS uses this symbol for both public highways that aren't really suitable for motor vehicles and for drives on private land to which the public definitely does not have access, even on foot.

[Ruperts Trooper]

There is no real difference between a narrow yellow road and a white road on Landrangers, whether they be in an urban or rural setting - white are simply what the OS considers to be less important.

There is no 100% legally watertight difference, certainly. But in practice, the vast majority of OS yellow roads and B-roads, and most A-roads that are on their original alignment and haven't been A55-ed, will be highways along which the public may proceed on foot without hindrance. That is not always the case with white roads - in rural areas, the OS uses this symbol for both public highways that aren't really suitable for motor vehicles and for drives on private land to which the public definitely does not have access, even on foot.

Where there is a right of way on foot along a private road, it's usually shown as a white road with red footpath markings - in England anyway.

[FosseWay]

There is no real difference between a narrow yellow road and a white road on Landrangers, whether they be in an urban or rural setting - white are simply what the OS considers to be less important.

There is no 100% legally watertight difference, certainly. But in practice, the vast majority of OS yellow roads and B-roads, and most A-roads that are on their original alignment and haven't been A55-ed, will be highways along which the public may proceed on foot without hindrance. That is not always the case with white roads - in rural areas, the OS uses this symbol for both public highways that aren't really suitable for motor vehicles and for drives on private land to which the public definitely does not have access, even on foot.

Where there is a right of way on foot along a private road, it's usually shown as a white road with red footpath markings - in England anyway.

I wasn't 100% certain of that. I think that the white road symbol is used for two distinct purposes that end up getting conflated. One is roads that are definitely "roads" but may either be impassable to normal motor vehicles or which are minor residential roads in towns that may also have bollards or signed restrictions on certain kinds of motor traffic (no motorbike stunts except for access etc.). The other is the aforementioned driveway kind, but without the pink markings you mention.

I don't know the official legal situation, but to all intents and purposes, minor roads in towns and unsurfaced public highways in the countryside are public rights of way, whereas private drives etc. are not unless a marked footpath, bridleway or other RoW coincidentally follows them.

In practice, if you spend a lot of time walking around E&W with the help of a 1:25 000 map you start to get a feel for which white roads that lack RoW information are open to the public and which are likely not to be. At the most basic level, those that "go somewhere" - i.e. they give access at the other end onto a classified road, a yellow/orange road or a marked RoW - are probably open to the public, while those that terminate at what looks on the map to be a private building probably aren't.

[KeithW]

I wasn't 100% certain of that. I think that the white road symbol is used for two distinct purposes that end up getting conflated. One is roads that are definitely "roads" but may either be impassable to normal motor vehicles or which are minor residential roads in towns that may also have bollards or signed restrictions on certain kinds of motor traffic (no motorbike stunts except for access etc.). The other is the aforementioned driveway kind, but without the pink markings you mention.

I don't know the official legal situation, but to all intents and purposes, minor roads in towns and unsurfaced public highways in the countryside are public rights of way, whereas private drives etc. are not unless a marked footpath, bridleway or other RoW coincidentally follows them.

In practice, if you spend a lot of time walking around E&W with the help of a 1:25 000 map you start to get a feel for which white roads that lack RoW information are open to the public and which are likely not to be. At the most basic level, those that "go somewhere" - i.e. they give access at the other end onto a classified road, a yellow/orange road or a marked RoW - are probably open to the public, while those that terminate at what looks on the map to be a private building probably aren't.

The road from the Pilot Inn to Dungeness Point the Brittania Pub and Lighthouse in Kent is an odd one that is shown on OS Maps in white with red symbols. The road itself is owned by the Dungeness Estate and also part of a National Nature Reserve. As I recall is technically a permissive byway it is however a path on which pedestrians have the right of way but on which vehicles are normally allowed but may be restricted particularly during the breeding period . I notice the Google Streetview vehicle did not go past the notice.


There are a number of forest roads that lead from one classified road to another but are not public rights of way, in fact some of them require payment in order to use the road. Kielder Forest Drive runs from the village of Kielder to the A68 south of Byrness.
https://www.forestryengland.uk/kielder- ... rest-drive

[Rob590]

I wasn't 100% certain of that. I think that the white road symbol is used for two distinct purposes that end up getting conflated. One is roads that are definitely "roads" but may either be impassable to normal motor vehicles or which are minor residential roads in towns that may also have bollards or signed restrictions on certain kinds of motor traffic (no motorbike stunts except for access etc.). The other is the aforementioned driveway kind, but without the pink markings you mention.

I don't know the official legal situation, but to all intents and purposes, minor roads in towns and unsurfaced public highways in the countryside are public rights of way, whereas private drives etc. are not unless a marked footpath, bridleway or other RoW coincidentally follows them.

The colour of roads - white or yellow - is in principle only about the relative size or importance of the road, but your inferences are broadly right.

I'd say however that in my experience most unsurfaced highways in the countryside are not rights of way; the majority will be access tracks for farmers, gamekeepers or other land managers. On an OS map I'd generally presume that a white rural road is not a right of way, unless it also has a red (Landranger) or green (Explorer) path marked along it. Of course, many of these routes are now on Open Access land which means that despite not being rights of way, there is a right of access to them.

In urban areas many rights of way simply go undocumented, as local authorities are underresourced, but it's relatively easy, with the right forms of evidence, to get a public right of way declared - you have to show unimpeded, non-sceretive use by the public in general along a linear route over a period of 20 years.

[jgharston]

In urban areas many rights of way simply go undocumented, as local authorities are underresourced, but it's relatively easy, with the right forms of evidence, to get a public right of way declared - you have to show unimpeded, non-sceretive use by the public in general along a linear route over a period of 20 years.

There's a 2025(?) deadline for registering omitted rights of ways on the definitive public rights of way map, so my town council is doing a project to mop up all the missed stuff in town, and a few corrections - there's one definitive path that technically goes through thin air as the land it cross fell away in the 1890s soon after it was built. We've even got a few definitive paths that don't join the public highway or any part of the defined footpath network!

[FosseWay]

I'd say however that in my experience most unsurfaced highways in the countryside are not rights of way; the majority will be access tracks for farmers, gamekeepers or other land managers. On an OS map I'd generally presume that a white rural road is not a right of way, unless it also has a red (Landranger) or green (Explorer) path marked along it.

Yes, I would agree with that, except for the practical consideration that if a white road joins a coloured road or a marked RoW at both ends, and does not go through the middle of a farmyard or similar, it more often than not is perfectly passable on foot.

Right-of-way legislation is a bit like legal tender legislation when it comes to coins and banknotes. In both cases they define a fairly narrow concept. In both cases it is perfectly possible for the "provider" (merchant or landowner) to accept "use" (payment or access) that is not covered by the legislation, and this happens very often. In fewer cases, but nevertheless, it is also possible for the "provider" to refuse legally acceptable "use" through ignorance or pigheadedness, and in such cases it is often not worth the "user" standing on their rights.

[Rob590]

In urban areas many rights of way simply go undocumented, as local authorities are underresourced, but it's relatively easy, with the right forms of evidence, to get a public right of way declared - you have to show unimpeded, non-sceretive use by the public in general along a linear route over a period of 20 years.

There's a 2025(?) deadline for registering omitted rights of ways on the definitive public rights of way map, so my town council is doing a project to mop up all the missed stuff in town, and a few corrections - there's one definitive path that technically goes through thin air as the land it cross fell away in the 1890s soon after it was built. We've even got a few definitive paths that don't join the public highway or any part of the defined footpath network!

My understanding is that a lot of local authorities are well behind on this project - I know that the Ramblers are concerned that rights of way will be lost because of this.

[Stevie D]

In urban areas many rights of way simply go undocumented, as local authorities are underresourced, but it's relatively easy, with the right forms of evidence, to get a public right of way declared - you have to show unimpeded, non-sceretive use by the public in general along a linear route over a period of 20 years.

There's a 2025(?) deadline for registering omitted rights of ways on the definitive public rights of way map, so my town council is doing a project to mop up all the missed stuff in town, and a few corrections - there's one definitive path that technically goes through thin air as the land it cross fell away in the 1890s soon after it was built. We've even got a few definitive paths that don't join the public highway or any part of the defined footpath network!

My understanding is that a lot of local authorities are well behind on this project - I know that the Ramblers are concerned that rights of way will be lost because of this.

Very much so. You would hope that if a claim has been submitted before the deadline of 2026 then it will be allowed, even if it sits in some council officer's in-pile for another 2 years before being looked at ... but with the way things are going at a lot of councils, there is a very real danger that some of them will try to just wash their hands of it and delete anything that is still in the queue at that point.

[vlad]

There are plenty of rights of way that just stop in apparently the middle of nowhere, some of which you wonder why they ever needed to exist.

Then there are those that should have been stopped up but weren't. In this neck of the woods is the Silverdale Void, which is an old opencast pit. It's still got public footpaths crossing it although, as the shape of the land was altered completely when coal was being extracted, it's now physically impossible for some paths to be walked along.

[Stevie D]

There are plenty of rights of way that just stop in apparently the middle of nowhere, some of which you wonder why they ever needed to exist.

Then there are those that should have been stopped up but weren't. In this neck of the woods is the Silverdale Void, which is an old opencast pit. It's still got public footpaths crossing it although, as the shape of the land was altered completely when coal was being extracted, it's now physically impossible for some paths to be walked along.

Very often, the paths that just stop "apparently in the middle of nowhere" actually stop at a parish boundary, like this one: http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=476962 ... &A=Y&Z=115
Because traditionally footpaths were the responsibility of parishes, it was not that uncommon for one parish to assiduously record a path as a public right of way but the neighbouring parish not to do so. In some cases, the through path is still in common use and now needs to be regularised on the definitive map – in other cases, the through route is deliberately blocked off and access to the non-right-of-way clearly prohibited.

[Vierwielen]

I know OS maps say that the presence of a road is no indication of a right of way. However, experience indicates that most roads shown are open to the public. Outside of built up areas roads that are not open to the public are shown in white. But is this correct? I note the road past the Rushmoor Arena Aldershot is coloured yellow but is not open to the public. Is this a mistake by OS, or have I misunderstood what a yellow road signifies?

The A323 which passes Rushmoor Arena is, AFASIK, a public road, but Bourley Road which links Church Crookham with Aldershot via Twesledown and passes a little to the south of Rushmoor Arena is a private road, owned by the MoD.

[ColinB]

I know that area is largely MOD land. Hence that road could be MOD and not open to the public. What surprised me was that the Landranger showed it as yellow rather than white.