Talk:Right-of-way (property access)

Right of way and infrastructure
I'm curious why my addition of was removed from this article. I always think of the right of way as the land on which the track is laid, which falls nicely into the definition of infrastructure as I know it. Slambo (Speak) 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do apologize. I was cleaning up the Right-of-way disambiguation page and I created this page to fill in what seemed to be a hole. I wasn't sure where the category came from and deleted it when I made some other minor edit -- I never imagined that someone else had already edited this page! Ewlyahoocom 00:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okeydoke. Thanks for the update.  Slambo (Speak)  00:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What's a strip of land like this called?
Hello. I'm looking to fill out the Right-of-way disambiguation page. I am looking for an article that covers these long strips of land for use in railroads, highways/interstates, canals, etc. Is there a catch-all phrase for that kind of strip of land? Let me guess... right-of-way? Any others? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sprint Nextel
Please explain why there's a Sprint-Nextel link that was replaced Ahockley 17:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about this too. It certainly doesn't seem to belong here. LrdChaos 18:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * From Sprint Nextel Corporation: Southern Pacific Communications Company (SPCC), a unit of the Southern Pacific Railroad began offering their dial-up service shortly after the Execunet II decision late in 1978. The Railroad had extensive rights of way that could be used to lay long-distance communications. ... Some claim it was an acronym for "Southern Pacific Railroad Information NeTwork"...


 * From Qwest: Founded in 1996 by Philip Anschutz, Qwest began in a very non-conventional way. Anschutz, who owned almost all of the railroad companies in the Western United States... began installing the first all-digital, fiber-optic infrastructure along his railroad lines...


 * If it weren't for these rights-of-way the spread of low-cost telecom would have been held back. Ewlyahoocom 20:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading that, I've removed the link. While the fiber-optic lines are laid along railroad rights-of-way, that's their only connection to the term in this context. The lines are laid because of an easement. Maybe if there were more to the article than what we have now, there would be room for a reference to them (as part of a section on other uses of an ROW), but as it stands now, there isn't context to make Sprint Nextel appear relevant to "strip of land granted to a railroad company upon which to build a railroad." LrdChaos 20:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll delete Rail trail, too -- same argument applies. Ewlyahoocom 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a section to the article titled "alternate uses" which lists a few of the other things that go along rights-of-way; I've also restored the wikilink to Sprint Nextel with a short bit of text about why they're relevant to this. LrdChaos 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So are we going to add links to every other telecommunications company out there? Because they all use the easements... not just Sprint.  As do natural gas companies and other utilities... Ahockley 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that listing this one means we should list them all, because of the "Southern Pacific Communications Company" part of Sprint. LrdChaos 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this was re-added, but I've removed it again for the above-listed reasons (not notable, relevance isn't adequately explained, etc.) 218.214.199.68 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea -- this page was getting TOO LONG already! Ewlyahoocom 07:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition
I'm a little confused as to what the subject of this article is, but I'm presuming that its primary focus is on rail rights of way (it's described as a Wikiproject trains article), and that the discussion of pedestrian rights of way should be dealt with in Right of way (public throughway). There is another article that deals with highways, Rights of way (traffic). Perhaps there's confusion here because of differences in usage between the UK and Republic of Ireland, and the USA? Unless anyone objects I will delete the Irish section -- I've already copied it to Right of way (public throughway). The ambiguity in the preamble to the article will also need to be corrected. Rwood128 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rights of way (traffic) has nothing to do with the rights of way for establishing highways, rather it is about the priority traffic direction for classes of traffic. (ie. a traffic light that gives priority turning over straight ahead traffic, reserved bus lanes) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Confusing lede
I'm afraid that the lede is rather confusing in attempting to differentiate 'right-of-way' and 'right of way' - are we sure that there is not variation in styling in different countries anyway? The disambiguation page seems to suggest so. Geopersona (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hyphens
I would like to suggest that the confusing hyphens be removed from this article's title, along with necessary revision to the lede as follows:

* This article focuses on a type of easement granted, reserved, or purchased across private or public land  for highways, railways, canals, as well as electrical transmission, oil and gas pipe lines. In the case of an easement, it may revert to its original owners if the facility is abandoned. The term "right of way" is also used to denote the land itself, such as the strips of land along a railroad track on which railroad companies own a right of way easement.

* Another article exists – Right of way – that deals with public access by foot, by bicycle, horseback on paths and trails, or along a waterway, or the foreshore. Rwood128 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I little research suggests that the phrase is sometimes hyphenated but that there is no consistencies, other than that the hyphenated version seems to more generally used in North America (|Merriam Webster) and the unhyphenated version is commonly used in Britain (see |OED).


 * As the unhyphenated version is also used in N. America, for the sake of consistency (see Right of way) I will therefore remove the hyphens from this article, unless objections are raised. Rwood128 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Rwood128 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Australia: Legal services Commission South Australia Rwood128 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both versions are used in Canada. The government appears to use the unhyphenated version, while the Canadian version of the OED gives the hyphenated version: Goverment of Canada; OED Canadian version.
 * New Zealand: A Google search suggests that the unhyphenated version is most common here.


 * Reverted pagemove, please use WP:RM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * HI 162 etc., You have had sufficient time to object to the proposed change. I also indicated on the Right of way page, earlier, that I planned to edit this article.


 * With regard to the name change discussion, as far as I can see that topic is dormant – though I did make an attempt to revive it. Right of way is a separate (if related) article from this one and my edit did not interfere with that discussion. I merely removed the hyphens for the sake of consistency. As the above indicates I thoroughly researched this matter. At the very least you should have responded to the above – even if you were late – before reverting.


 * A hyphen is not used in the section on the traffic term. Rwood128 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A couple things here:
 * 1. My objection is that "Right of way" and "Right-of-way" as a sort of WP:NATDAB is currently being discussed at Talk:Right of way. That discussion should play out, and a consensus reached, before hyphen-related edits to this or related articles are made.
 * 2. There is no deadline. "You have had sufficient time to object to the proposed change" is not something that is supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline.
 * 3. So far, nobody has participated in the above discussion but you. That's not a consensus. I urge you to be more patient as the community considers and discusses these points.  Thank you for your ongoing contributions to the encyclopedia. 162 etc. (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No objections were raised, so I acted in accordance with Be bold. Rwood128 (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You were advised 20 May of my intent on the Right of way Talk page, also, 162 etc.. Can you take charge re the change of name for Right of way? There appears to be a consensus for action, though no name has been designated. I haven't yet checked the previous name change discussion in 2014, I have to admit. Rwood128 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd like to revert 162 etc.'s edit here. My reasons are indicated above. The removing of "hyphens", was so that the spelling of this article matched other similarly named ones. However, this is a fairly minor matter, so I will happily await the resolution to the discussion re name change, before acting. Rwood128 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A comment was made on 6 June on Talk:Right of way: "Neither should have hyphens in it, because those only pertain to use as a compound modifier per MOS:HYPHEN (e.g. in 'a right-of-way dispute', but 'a dispute about right of way'; same as 'a common-law principle' vs. 'a principle in common law')". This would seem to resolve this matter, 162 etc.. A note on this should be included in all related articles.
 * I'm not in favour, or against, hyphenation. What I'm objecting to is the change being made while the discussion at Talk:Right of way is ongoing.  When a consensus is reached there, it will also affect this article.  Note that one commenter's interpretation of the MOS is not automatically gospel.  Let's wait. 162 etc. (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Rwood128 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 162 etc., I will remove the the unnecessary hyphens, in accordance with MOS:HYPHEN, unless anyone has a strong argument for not doing this. Rwood128 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection to moving this article to Right of way (property access), per above. 162 etc. (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Property access
Maybe, to make matters clearer, rename the article Right of way (land grant)? Rwood128 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Public trails by land and water
This article is about a restricted right to access for a specific purpose. The section "Public trails by land and water" belongs in Right of way (public throughway). I propose to remove it or have I misunderstood a some aspect of US law that is not obvious to a UK editor? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not a lawyer, so you may well be right! Though, certain public rights of way are established through legislation and others through regular, unimpeded use over a number of years. I saw a parallel here with other kinds of rights of way, such as railroads and utility corridors. Railroads are, however, private property.
 * I grew up in England but have lived for much of my life in Newfoundland, Canada, the most British/Irish part of North America. The US law with regard to rights of way appears to be rather different from that in the UK – and Europe. And I suspect that this maybe a source of confusion re Wikipedia's articles on this topic (and amateurs, like me, meddling in legal matters). Rwood128 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The topic is covered well in the thoroughfare article, so I will remove it from this one. The status of railways is a little anomalous: I can't see that they belong here either since they own the land they are on. I am inclined to remove them too when I figure out where best to direct readers - not that any would start from this article, I strongly suspect. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * So railroads differ from electric grids, piplelines, highways, etc.? Hope you have a legal background 𝕁𝕄𝔽. Can you please clarify.
 * Also do you agree that the use of hyphens for this article's title is grammatically erroneous? Rwood128 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes and no. A pipeline under or a power line over my farm does not deprive me of beneficial use of my land for farming at least. Indeed (depending on jurisdiction) I can probably charge rent for the privilege and almost certainly can charge for loss of use during construction and reinstatement even if (at least in England and Wales) the infrastructure operator has a statutory right to insist. If a highway or railway line needs to cross my land, eminent domain (compulsory purchase) will be used whereupon it ceases to be my land and the question of rights or easements becomes irrelevant. So "stands to reason" rather being able to quote subsection of any law. So I can't add anything to that effect without a WP:RS.
 * I am about to ask at talk:Railway line whether they can find a better home for the US usage. I notice that the UK usage, permanent way, redirects there.
 * As for the hyphens, I'm pushing my luck enough as it is so would you follow up please? MOS:HYPHEN may have the answer. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

For info: discussion elsewhere re name of public footpaths etc article
See Talk:Right of way (public throughway) Rwood128 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to restructure and rename this article (to "Right of way (railroad)")
As it stands and despite the opening sentence, in reality most of this article is concerned with the usage of the term "right of way" in US railway terminology. Apparently this is very much current usage terminology in the US (per hatnote above), so satisfies WP:GNG. The only part of the article that deals with right of access for infrastructure networks (under or over private land) is the lead section, but that content is a WP:CFORK of Easement.

So my proposal is this:
 * move (and thus rename) this article to become Right of way (railroad) (not "railway", since it is most relevant to US usage.
 * delete the entire lead as it stands, with the possibility of copying the deleted content to Easement of anything lacking there.
 * the revised article will thus begin from the current section head #Rail right of way. From the discussion at the glossary talk page, there is quite a lot more to be said about the topic.
 * A new about will make clear what goes where.
 * The sentence or two in the current lead about permitted access to land with no road frontage is a very minor item that can be found a home in the "Right of way (footpaths, cycleways, bridleways and canoe-ways) article when a suitable name for it has been hammered out.

What have I missed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I like this structure overall. If your proposal is to rename this page, however, then you should probably follow the procedure at Requested moves. BD2412  T 19:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * TYVM, yes, I plan to do that but I thought it best to test the water first, as I don't want to spend a lot of effort on the wrong proposal. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * 𝕁𝕄𝔽, just found this. I never know which Talk page to check!

I have just realized that the term "right of way" may only used for highways in the UK. The distinction between public and private rights of way, however, remains a useful distinction. So that, for example there are paths and trails that are created by prescription and those by legislation. Prescription exists in some American states according to the Concise Britannica online. I will do a little more research/thinking and correct my recent edits in the morning (just saw your comment to my Talk). Rwood128 (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, just to make it entertaining, in English law (Scotland and NI have different laws which I don't know), that little narrow muddy path across the wheat field is indeed legally a highway! Anybody may use it (just not necessarily in a monster truck ). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I find, with further research, that the term "right of way" is used in connection with railways and utilities in the UK, so that my recent edits seem more reasonable now. However, differences in usage exist. On the other hand a telephone line involves a different type of easement from a rail line.
 * Yes, I'm aware of the legal differences between different parts of the UK. Likewise Quebec in Canada, and there appear to be differences between States in the US. Rwood128 (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The article that convinced me that I really don't have any concept of how deep this morass goes was Weymouth Harbour Tramway, specifically at Weymouth Harbour Tramway: 1  The line did not follow a dedicated right-of-way. The significant word is "dedicated", I think, since it did run down a public highway. So if you want an edge case, that would make a good one –  though we might file it under "too difficult" and "Wikipedia is not a court of law".  --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It is worth remembering that the easement article focusses more precisely on the law and is useful as a reference point.. I have also found useful sources online provided by law firms, utilities and governments. I imagine the Encyclopaedia Britannica would be helpful too. I have checked the Concise version online and will eventually get to the library!

Requested move 23 June 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Editors disagree with limiting this article to railroads, and no consensus has formed on an alternative title.

Editors should feel free to open a proposal to a different title at any time, or propose the merge option mentioned in this discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Right-of-way (property access) → Right of way (railroad) – The reasons for the request are set out in above. The article as it stands has a lead which is essentially a WP:CFORK of Easement. The article itself is predominantly about the US railroad term, which (as per discussion), meets WP:GNG and merits an article in any case. The alternative, a Request to Split, seems inappropriate. If approved, I will delete the cforked material completely and replace it with a link to the Easement article. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a concurrent Talk:Right of way (public throughway) that proposes Right of way (public throughway) → Right of way (transit) . --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rights of way exist for more than just railroads, some examples I can think of are roadways, high-voltage electrical lines, and pipelines, both above and underground. I don't think it's appropriate to make the article exclusive to rail use, though I agree that the "permitted access to land with no road frontage" should be elsewhere. That discussion of these other forms of rights of way is absent doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in this article, it simply means no one has done so yet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have introduced this RtM by explaining that it is part of clearing up some anomalies created when the (charitably speaking) wp:broad concept article about "Right of way" was changed to a disambiguation. See talk:Right of way (public throughway)) I was not a party to that discussion and its outcomes but I certainly agree with its analysis.
 * So I believe that the concepts that you identify are covered in Right of way (disambiguation). If there is anything missing, then best you raise them at that article's talk page. Does that meet your objection? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why, 𝕁𝕄𝔽, should this article be changed so that it only focusses on railroads and not all easements "granted, purchased, or reserved over land for transportation purposes". I do not understand the logic here, unless, maybe, the law surrounding canals, pipelines, etc, is significantly different from that for railways? Also what about national hiking and cycling trails created by government agencies? How do they significantly differ in law from rail rights of way. Some old rail rights of way have been converted into rail trails. We really need a lawyer to clarify these questions.
 * Do we really need new articles for canals (see, History of the British canal system), for pipelines, for other similar types of right of way?
 * Might a better alternative title be Right of way (land grant)? Rwood128 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rwood128 that this isn't a satisfactory change. There does not seem to be any good reason to ignore that the same right of way concept applies to other forms of transportation (and hiding them in a disambiguation page and saying they don't matter here is not an answer). So I oppose the move. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , if we ignore the wp:cfork of Easement that takes up the lead (but has no corresponding body content, contrary to WP:LEAD), the article as it stands seems to be entirely about the US railroad meaning. (In the UK, the land occupied by roads, railways and canals is state property and is not a "right of way" as that term is defined in UK law.) The article is definitely not about property access, so the name needs to be changed. I have no objection to "land grant" if that idea attracts more support (not that "railroad" has any support yet!).


 * , sorry but I fail to see how that response is relevant to a discussion that is primarily about renaming this article. It reads to me that you want to reopen the decision to convert Right of way from a broad concept article to a disambiguation article, with the content dispersed into a number of subsidiary articles. If that is so, you need to initiate a new debate at talk:Right of way. It certainly makes no sense to attempt to circumvent the decision by back-filling each subsidiary article with material copied from the others. Of course I may have completely misunderstood your point, which would make sense if public highways are deemed in US law to be rights of way over third-party land, rather than being state property as is the norm in Europe. If that is the case, would "land grant" fit the bill? -𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

𝕁𝕄𝔽 the article did originally contain brief (undeveloped) mention of other commercial rights of way. This element was not expanded and appears to have been deleted recently. I don't support the idea of making this article exclusively about railroads. I imagine that there is an interesting relationship between canal rights of way and the subsequent development in the 19th century of railroads, and so on. Rwood128 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to that idea, my initial choice of name was influenced by the fact that the current content is only about railways in the US (ignoring the cfork). So your Mission Impossible is to come up with a more encompassing name and to add material about canals and any other routes where the original land owner retains an interest. (I'm intrigued by the canals: I took it for granted that the only reason that their promoters required an Act of Parliament was so that they could use compulsory purchase powers that are reserved to organs of the state. I await enlightenment.)--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just come upon the term "statutory right of way" – see (Canada) . And . And Australia


 * I'm no expert on canals and presumed, without further research, that there was similar legislation for the subsequent development of railways, at least in Britain. Rwood128 (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the only part of this article that is actually about property access is the sentence or two about the right [the easement, in law] of the owner of a property without road frontage to cross the property of another to access it. We really need to resolve its name. (Or delete everything that is off-topic!) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * What about Statutory right of way? Is that word used in the US and the UK? all the right of way articles are of course too narrowly Anglophile, but that's another matter! Rwood128 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC) PS France
 * That would recombine this and the "throughway" articles again, defeating the decision to unbundle. I also think it too broad a title, since there are so many statutes in so many jurisdictions.
 * How about right of way (easement) which I think captures your idea but limits its scope. It also encompasses my railroad idea but broadens it to encompass related ideas. Such as canals and power lines. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For example, here is a New Zealand case about right of way that is entirely about law of easement 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Aren't all rights of way easements of some kind? What about Commercial rights of way, or Private rights of way. I still think one article would be the best route; as an off-shoot of the main article Easement. That article also needs improving, so as to emphasise more the relationship between easements and the rights of way articles. Rwood128 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * is not an easement. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point! Thanks. Though that is not discussed here – and seems to have been forgotten.Rwood128 (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It is listed as one of the possible meanings of the term, at Right of way (disambiguation). So not forgotten, just underlines the need to be clear about the scope of this article and then assert that in the opening about hatnote. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm coming round to the idea of semi-reverting to a single article (Right of way (thoroughfare)?) that combines all forms of transit rights. As it is, we are duplicating a lot of info between the two articles. If we have two articles, the distinct purpose of each should be obvious but it is becoming less so as we go on. (The "rules of the road" topic is clearly distinct.) But different classes of highway (footpath, bridleway, carriageway) are not distinct enough for separate articles in respect of their RoW status. (I have an impression that a footpath across a field of growing wheat is uniquely English. I know for sure that it doesn't exist in France, Italy, Ireland or Spain, where walkers depend on country lanes. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. I only associate paths across cornfields with the Home Counties, There are footpaths and bridleways in Europe, and probably across cornfields in France, at least. Rwood128 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section on canals needed
We have discussed but not delivered anything on the legal status of canals in England. I have since come across the relevant US legislation, if someone cares to write it up? Your witness. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1890 - Canal Act reserved federal authority for right of way to canals on public lands


 * Probably just needs brief discussion. Also the term "statutory right of way" probably deserves comment. It might possibly be a better name for this article? Rwood128 (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are they always defined in statute? Worldwide?


 * How do we distinguish between RoW that is a muddy footpath across a field – the meaning of the phrase as understood by most people versus the 16 lane freeway / local railway / the road past my front door  –  the meaning understood by engineers and city planners. Technically there is no distinction, they are all statutory RoW, but if we combine them we end back with an impenetrable law book. The only parallel I know is the articles Virus  and Introduction to viruses: the first is for scientists, the second for people who just want the basics. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A google search suggests that the term "statutory right of way" is a Canadian term for the kind of right of way included in this article.
 * You aren't allowed to walk or ride along a freeway unlike a regular road. And the opposite extreme is a public footpath, which only allows pedestrians. All are highways. Rwood128 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also true in England. I'm just concerned that it may not be true outside Common Law jurisdictions (which wouldn't matter except that you are proposing to make it the title). The term "statutory" simply means "mentioned in statute law". But the name does have the merit that makes clear that its purpose is to explain the overall legal principle, letting subsidiary articles like Right of way (rail) do the detail? Maybe that would permit the article currently called Right of way (transit) to be restricted to, and thus renamed to right of way (footpaths and bridleways)?
 * A freeway is a restricted RoW, restricted to motor vehicles capable of speed in excess of 80 kph or 50 mph. Just like that muddy footpath is a RoW restricted to walkers. As you say, technically they are both equally highways but they are so different that it is not a helpful qualifier. And of course railroads, rivers and canals are not highways. But that supports rather than undermines the "statutory" proposal. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think "statutory" is suitable. Isn't the common element to this article the fact that these rights of way are all non-prescriptive – and most private?

Re the "transit"article, I think the best title would be Public rights of way. There are other (similar) rights of way in addition to footpaths and bridleways in England and Wales, and presumably elsewhere.Rwood128 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that doesn't get us out of the bind. Most rights of way are public, not private. The street outside your house [unless you live in a gated community] is a public right of way. Railway lines are also rights of way – albeit heavily restricted as to traffic –  and are public (aka state) property in most countries. I really thought you had cracked it with "statutory".
 * Can we file this under "too difficult"?  --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This article focusses on railways, canals, pipelines, and utilities, etc which are not public rights of way established by prescription but privately owned in most cases. Some hiking and other trails are included in both articles for now..


 * The "transit" article's focus, however, is on rights of way established by prescription –– plus national trails that may in part or whole be established by legislative power.

As far as I can see we have two distinct types of right of way: Public rights of way and Non-prescriptive rights of way, or Private rights of way, or Legislated rights of way. Yes, long distance trails belong in both camps! But that's a minor problem. Also the "transit" article should include all highways and not just paths and trails.

I would, also, have no objection to the two articles being combined, as length isn't a problem. Rwood128 (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The reason that the original RoW article was split was that it had become unwieldy, bogged down in legal niceties that only apply to some classes and jurisdictions. And yes, it can be too big, see WP:TOOBIG. Your proposal is a sound basis for two articles with minimal overlap.
 * The prescriptive v non-prescriptive idea is valid but it doesn't start from well known terms. "Public RoW" works and is relatively uncomplicated (and yes, it can contain muddy paths to freeways - and created long-distance trails too); "legislated RoW" doesn't work because "ancient rights" have been enshrined in subsequent law.
 * "Private RoW" would be a great name and distinctive if it fits (most of!) the facts - can you do some test cases and edge cases? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have just seen this, after I had been editing the two articles. I have attempted to clarify matters relating to highways. The article "Highways" obviously supplements the article Right of way (transit).
 * Now the topic of long distance trails needs to be clarified. Also I note that rights of way are sometimes leased rather than purchased. Rwood128 (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

"Controlled access" rights of way

 * 1) If we are to reorganise into "public" v "private" RoWs, then your text on controlled access highways at the [currently named] property access article is excellent but will be in the wrong article. It is exactly like pedestrian-only footpaths, only at the opposite end of the scale. Both are public RoWs but not open to all traffic at all times. So I think text you added about it to the [currently named] transit article is overworked.

Reply: Don't agree. A motorway in the UK is built on (mostly) appropriated land and then by statute becomes a right of way. Regular roads are highways that follow a route established by prescription, often over hundred, if not thousands of years. The situation in other countries is undoubtedly similar.

Progress? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) (While I think of it), a permissive right of way is a private RoW that the owner has made available for some uses at their sole discretion, which may be withdrawn.
 * 2) A public right of way over a leased route is still a public RoW: the tenure of the land is not material for our purposes.
 * 3) I don't know the practice in North America but in England, long distance trails were largely created simply by adding new badges to existing RoWs. But certainly some gaps were filled by compulsory purchase if the land owner would not do so voluntarily. The farmer lost the use of the strip of land and the local authority has to maintain it like any other byway [aka not very well :-) ]. Obviously it was cheaper to pay for (= lease) an easement on behalf of the public.

Reply. The situation re long distance paths can be more complicated than you suggest. The Trans Canada Trail starts near me. Across Newfoundland it mainly follows an old rail right of way. It also includes waterways in other parts of Canada. On the other hand the East Coast Trail, here, mainly follows old rights of way established by prescription under Common Law, with maybe the odd permissive way. However, there's a section planned that will traverse pathless bush (probably Crown Land). Old rail tracks have of course been used in the UK and elsewhere. In the US state and federally owned land is probably often used; this needs researching. I also imagine the legal establishment of a long distance trail may make it harder to change the status of individual rights of way. Should have gone to law school! Rwood128 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well don't forget that WP:Wikipedia is not a court of law. We don't have to identify every special case, let's leave some hooks for others to resolve. The article Rail trail describes such examples: the one near me is the former Wolverton–Newport Pagnell line. Who actually owns the RoW? Does it matter if at least de facto it is a public RoW albeit restricted to pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists? I don't think so. It is a public RoW in fact if anyone may use it (subject to type of carriage, not person) without any licence or ticket. [Canals in the UK are private RoWs: you may not put a motorised craft (at least) on a canal without buying an annual touring or mooring licence.]
 * So I think I can answer your challenge re the Trans Canada Trail by turning it on its head: leave it to that article to go into the legal status of its component parts; for this article it is sufficient to say that long distance trails mainly run over public RoWs or open-access lands, but also by permission (license?) on private RoWs. We really don't need to go into chapter and verse in each case as we will get bogged down in legal niceties that are outwith [as the Scots like to say] our competence. Does that work? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I have simplified the LDPs entry. There should also be an entry in this article, relating to Rail paths and the creation of new, non-prescriptive rights of way.
 * Re your reference to canals, there is a section on rivers in the "transit" article. Maybe you could add something there? Rwood128 (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many rail trails are actually permissive private RoWs rather than public RoWs. In the UK, they are all public but that is because the strip of underlying land is state = public property. Per previous discussions about US practice, the strip there is a leased easement and the farmer retains ownership (and often recovers it it the line is closed). Any idea about the relevant Canadian law? I will add a subsection about rail trails under the rail section of this article, tagging it as "please expand". Also to mention at the other article that they are either public RoWs or permissive private RoWs fully open to the public for non-motorised traffic – but that would be jumping ahead, we need to secure agreement to the public v private names first.
 * The status of rivers is a legal minefield in England alone, I think we could only tag that as "expert needed". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, the article on rail trails can deal with further complexity. Re waterways, I thought that the basics are clear: access is highly restricted in England and Wales but open in Canada, the US, Scandinavia, and Scotland.Rwood128 (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No doubt you are right but it is not something I know about or would know where to start. The article waterway does not discuss rights of transit. Just as a clue, we have a List of navigation authorities in the United Kingdom! (which includes navigable rivers). A list! I'm not sure you are right about Scotland because of the fishing interests? Maybe we can just leave a stub for others to fill out? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Fishing is not our concern. I provided a link for Scotland. Re English canals I did a quick search and found this further information:. Can we concentrate now on getting sensible names for these two articles? Rwood128 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are starting to get bogged down in detail. So are you ok with the transit article becoming "Right of way (public)" and the property access article becoming "Right of way (private)"? If so, we can do another RtM. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great suggestions. 142.167.29.248 (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC) rwwod128