River Access Map

[DaveBland]

Am I completely missing the point with this? A map showing places where paddlers have historically had hassles with locals/fishy-types is of use and relevance, but positioning it as anything else surely undermines the premise that there is a right of passage on all rivers and that access agreements are bunk.

[Keith Day]

This, and any other orange rivers with similar pathetic "agreements" ought to be purple. Can/how can these rivers be re-rated?

And then you could have better (but not good) agreements in a different shade etc. I agonised over this for some time but decided it was best to indicate that some form of agreement exists with the colour and use words to quantify the nature of the agreement. If you clik on the river you will see the Wye says "This is a unilateral 'agreement' proposed by the Wye & Usk Foundation. Under the terms of the agreement canoeing is only allowed from October until March. Outside of those dates the river may only be paddled at spate level. Canoe Wales does not support such agreements." and the Blackwater says "An Access agreement has been reached. A staggering 50 paddlers are allowed on the river per year, at 1 event in May. (See here for details.)"

I'll review the wording of all "agreement" sections this weekend to make sure they accurately reflect (my understanding of) the situation. Maybe the Blackwater would be better with the word "derisory" added.

[Keith Day]

Am I completely missing the point with this? A map showing places where paddlers have historically had hassles with locals/fishy-types is of use and relevance, but positioning it as anything else surely undermines the premise that there is a right of passage on all rivers and that access agreements are bunk.

There is a limit to what you can do with the colours on the map and no ideal solution. The words on the homepage explain it better.
"Green means you have a generally accepted right to paddle (subject to any licencing requirements there may be), amber means the riparian owners have agreed to paddling in certain specific circumstances (often very limited) and purple means you have no generally accepted right to paddle. It does NOT mean you have no rights of access - merely that others dispute this right."

[DaveBland]

Am I completely missing the point with this? A map showing places where paddlers have historically had hassles with locals/fishy-types is of use and relevance, but positioning it as anything else surely undermines the premise that there is a right of passage on all rivers and that access agreements are bunk.

There is a limit to what you can do with the colours on the map and no ideal solution. The words on the homepage explain it better.
"Green means you have a generally accepted right to paddle (subject to any licencing requirements there may be), amber means the riparian owners have agreed to paddling in certain specific circumstances (often very limited) and purple means you have no generally accepted right to paddle. It does NOT mean you have no rights of access - merely that others dispute this right."

No, cool, I accept that – and it's a great piece of work. There's nothing wrong with the content, it's great.
I think it's the title - the positioning of it as a "River Access Map".

In practical terms, it's a map of where you may encounter confrontation if paddling. Something that positions it as such - and then uses the categories and explanations to grade the degree of dispute/animosity potentially encountered - would move it away from seeming like 'What we are allowed to paddle". The 'access level' info would then provides context and background, rather than being potentially confused with going along with it all.

Just my thoughts... great work though. It's incredible to see the way the colour highlight the issue.

[Jim Pullen]

Keith - firstly, glad to see this progressing so well now.
One small point - I notice you've got the Crake (South Lake District) comment there from the LRA Ian Adey. Unfortunately, from my understanding, whilst Ian initially took on the job to scrap the restrictive access agreement and announce paddlers should take to the water year round with suitable levels, CE have subsequently told him he's not allowed to do that. The long-standing (and long ignored) restrictive "agreement" is now officially "under review." ie CE are too scarred to do what Ian suggested and take a more Canoe Wales type approach to things. Foot, bullet, Ho Hum.

[Keith Day]

CE have subsequently told him he's not allowed to do that. The long-standing (and long ignored) restrictive "agreement" is now officially "under review."

If Ian or CE finish their review and tell me (or anyone else who tells me) the situation has changed I'll amend the words to reflect that, of course.

[morsey]

Thanks for your reply Keith.

With regards the Wye and Usk, there is no doubt there is no agreement in place. WUF were in arbitrated discussions with Canoes Wales (WCA as it was at the time) via the Welsh assembly, and going behind the backs of the negotiations the WUF generated and publicised their list of restrictions for the Wye and the Usk and called it an agreement. It is not an agreement, it should not be published as such. For England I understand your frustration with a lack of clarity from CE, but for Wales CW will provide the clarity. No agreements in Wales endorsed by CW.

In England there are four national non restrictive endorsed agreements. Waveney, Breta, Mole and Mersey. Until CE announce any new non restrictive 365 day endorsed agreements, that is the complete list of national agreements. It seems a little odd to have to click an agreement to find out that it is not really an agreement! If you changed all the non endorsed agreements to red (either the access is disputed by the landowners, or the restrictions are disputed) you would not need additional colours, the easy read aspect of your map will not change, and paddlers could click to find out what the local details are. I doubt a non paddler would look passed the yellow marker, and would just consider it to be a fair agreement!

[morsey]

CE are too scarred to do what Ian suggested and take a more Canoe Wales type approach to things

What is Ian going to do? Stand down forcing BCU/CE to have to carry out their own dirty work, get together with other advisers and agree collectively to not adopt any restrictive policy, do what BCU/CE tell him? I'd be interested to know his response to this situation.

[Keith Day]

I Understand your point Simon. What I'm trying to show as it says on the home page is "amber means the riparian owners have agreed to paddling in certain specific circumstances (often very limited)". I don't want to restrict it to formal agreed agreements etc. My problem is that I have used the shorthand "Access Agreement" on the key on the map and technically (if no one else has agreed) it can't be an agreement (or can it?)

Can you suggest a different short description to cover "amber means the riparian owners have agreed to paddling in certain specific circumstances (often very limited)". It's not easy is it :)

Would "Some Access Agreed" be any better?

[quicky]

Some Access Agreed

Some access restricted on disputed grounds

[morsey]

If the criteria is broad to cover all "agreements" then possibly don't use the word agreement to describe the category!

Yellow = restrictions of access

But then the CE endorsed (non restrictive) agreements would fall under the accepted right to paddle criteria so would be green?

[Keith Day]

But then the CE endorsed (non restrictive) agreements would fall under the accepted right to paddle criteria so would be green?

If you accept that you are paddling under an access agreement then you are NOT paddling by right. You are paddling by permission of those that have the rights.

[Jim Pullen]

But then the CE endorsed (non restrictive) agreements would fall under the accepted right to paddle criteria so would be green?

If you accept that you are paddling under an access agreement then you are NOT paddling by right. You are paddling by permission of those that have the rights.

[pedant]Except in the case of the Mersey they used the CROW act to dedicate the rivers use, meaning permission could never be withdrawn...[/pedant]

It's so complicated that no one's ever going to be happy with all the different definitions of what has an agreement or not. I guess it depends on whether you want the map to be something to wave at politians to say "look at the level of disputed rivers!" or just as a tool for canoeists to use to see where they're liking to get shouted at.

[Keith Day]

Except in the case of the Mersey they used the CROW act to dedicate the rivers use, meaning permission could never be withdrawn..

I'd missed this point Jim. If that's the case I am happy to show the rivers as green. Do you have or can you link to any documentation that confirmed this and identifies precisely which parts of the rivers were dedicated (by those with the power to dedicate them).

The situation is a total mess but if these rivers now have a confirmed and irrevocable right of navigation under CROW then they should be green.

[JonT]

http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/media/p ... 0Trail.pdf

(I have some misgivings about Canoe Trails)

[quicky]

p10 and 11 made interesting reading

[whosthedaddy]

The wording on page 10 seems to be the standard wording for "national non restrictive endorsed (by CE) agreements". For example the Waveney http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/media/pdf/EA%20Waveney%20agreement%202005.pdf. These are the only 2 I can find on the CE website. Could this be a way of identifying non-restrictive agreements as CE seem reluctant to provide a list?

I also notice that some of the purple rivers are annotated "Not legally allowed to paddle" c.f. The Brett. This implies an acceptance of the landowners claims.

I make these comments purely in the spirit of improving an already excellent resource - a lot of effort must have gone into getting the site to this standard.

[Keith Day]

[quote="whosthedaddy"I also notice that some of the purple rivers are annotated "Not legally allowed to paddle" c.f. The Brett. This implies an acceptance of the landowners claims. [/quote]

I agree. That one slipped past me in a busy moment. I've amended it to "Although there is no widely accepted right to paddle there seems little conflict in practice." If you can identify any others like this I'll change them.

[Big Henry]

I always considered this River Access Map as being an attempt to demonstrate what is available to us to paddle from the point of view of 10-12 years ago, before the Caffyn work, and as a possible response to the Brighton Report. Since many MPs, maggot drowners and land owners etc. still continue to believe that the legal state of play is the same now as then (ie not accepting any changes of opinion of the Law or bringing to our notice the actual Law as pointed out by Caffyn) it is a tool to show how hard done by paddlers are.

[Keith Day]

I have reviewed all rivers / sections show on the map in yellow. Remember that these are not restricted to formal access agreements ratified by one organisation or another but to sections of rivers where to some (even very limited) extent, paddling takes place with the consent of the riparian owners or other "authorities".

If you still feel I've got it wrong let me know and I'll grapple with it again.

There are many rivers where although there is no consensus on the basis of of a right to paddle there is equally local conflict. Please complete an access report by clicking on the river and then "add new access rating". This will allow others to see that in practice, despite a lack of clarity over rights to paddle, there is unlikely to be any issue if paddled responsibly.

[Poke]

Just tried to find the "report an access incident" button on the site and gave up in the end...

Can whoever is in charge get one put on the front page. Would make it much easier to do in the future!

[SimonMW]

You just click on a river and the report an incident option appears on the box that appears. Simples.

[Chris Bolton]

Keith, can I suggest that canals (with licenced access) should be in a different colour to natural waterways (with disputed rights of access)? I understand that both are places where paddlers are likely to be able to paddle without serious harassment, but it means that the map presents an artificial picture of how much water can be paddled on, as of right, without hassle.

A couple of minor points; not all the canals are hidden when clicking the button, eg, Lancaster Canal and Millennium link stay visible. Also, I think Canoe Wales would consider the Tryweryn to be green, now?

Thanks for the work you've put into this.

Chris