Talk:Right-of-way (property access)

Right of way and infrastructure

I'm curious why my addition of Category:Rail infrastructure 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 (Webster) and the unhyphenated version is commonly used in Britain (see [1].

• 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)

• 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.

Rwood128 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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)#New name Rwood128 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to restructure and rename this article (to "Right of way (railroad)")

Further information: Talk:Glossary of rail transport terms § "Right of way" term in US railways usage

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#Wayleave.

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#Wayleave 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)

@JMF: I like this structure overall. If your proposal is to rename this page, however, then you should probably follow the procedure at Wikipedia: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#Calls for heritage operations: 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 #Proposal to restructure and rename this article (to "Right of way (railroad)") above. The article as it stands has a lead which is essentially a WP:CFORK of Easement#Wayleave. 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)#Requested move 23 June 2024 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)

@Trainsandotherthings: 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)#Requested move 14 May 2024) 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#The Golden Age)), 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)

@Rwood128:, if we ignore the wp:cfork of Easement#Wayleave 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!).

@Trainsandotherthings:, 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) [2]. And [3]. And Australia [4]

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)

Right of way (traffic) 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)

@Rwood128:, 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?

• 1890 - Canal Act reserved federal authority for right of way to canals on public lands

Your witness. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

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

New section for convenience, follows on from post by Rwood128 at 10:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC). Numbering is just to make replies easier to organise.

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.

1. 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.

Progress? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

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: [5]. 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

References

Another RM in prospect: straw poll

@Trainsandotherthings, BarrelProof, and Beland: The discussion above has been rather a two-way conversation between Rwood128 and me, so to call it a consensus is a bit strong. However, we are both agreed that a better pair of names and a better focus for the content would be to rename right of way (transit) to right of way (public) (and thus encompass everything from footpath to motorway plus rivers) and right-of-way (property access) to right-of-way (private) (and thus encompass railways, canals, wayleaves etc). [Other uses of the term are addressed at right of way (disambiguation) ].

But before we do another formal RtM, I thought it might be wise to check that this proposal is likely to be acceptable, or whether there are concerns that need to be addressed first. So your comments would be welcome, please. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I actually think that the current article names are backwards. What's currently in Right of way (transit) is really about a right to access property, while Right-of-way (property access) is confusing because the other right of way is actually about access to property, and rapid transit often uses a dedicated right of way which would fall under the definition in the (property access) article but might reasonably be expected to relate to an article with the word "transit" in it. We also run into ENGVAR issues between British English and American English with different terms. I think the best course of action would be to have "Right of way (infrastructure)" which encompasses transportation and utility rights of way, and a "Right of way (public access)" which talks about the distinct definition of a right for pedestrians to access certain pathways through private land. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the continuing use of hyphens? See: "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").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)" (Talk: Right of way (transit)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Our starting point is that the current names are unhelpful and potentially misleading, so please don't let that side-track you. But the founding idea for the transit article (which we propose will become the "public" article) is that the public in general have a legal right to use the way to get from A to B "without let or hindrance". They may be restricted in how they may do so (e.g, on foot only, on non-motorised means, farm traffic only, all the way up to vehicles minimally capable of 80 kph (50 mph)) but not 'whether'. (As the discussion above resolved, the current limitation to non-mechanical is unsustainable and indefensible.)

The "property access" one is seriously misnamed since that concept only applies (afik) to a right by contract to cross land to gain access to other land with no road frontage (better known as an easement). Railroads, canals, toll-roads etc are usually (your jurisdiction may vary) private routes that may only be used with permission and on payment of a fee – and there is a raft of legal niceties over ownership of the underlying land. [Tow-paths are often public RoWs but that is by the by.]

@SMcCandlish: I don't know that we can ever resolve that one. As you show, practice varies according to context and, I suspect, WP:ENVAR. But I don't think it really matters since we can use redirects from the alternative names. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Most roadways and a number of railroads are publicly owned (e.g. Network Rail or the practice of a number of U.S. states of acquiring rail lines put up for abandonment and either turning them into trails or keeping them going as rail lines), so I don't think "private" is an appropriate descriptor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish and JMF: Dictionary.com indicates that "right-of-way" is simply an alternative spelling of "right of way" in American English only. I consider it correct to be always hyphenated, like will-o'-the-wisp, regardless of grammatical context, but the unhyphenated noun version is also correct. Dictionary.com says in British English the unhyphenated version is the only correct one, so for commonality I would recommend that Wikipedia stick with unhyphenated for article titles and just note the alternate spelling in the intro of all such articles. -- Beland (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction! I just noticed that Encyclopedia Britannica uses only the hyphenated version, so it must be an issue of house style and not American vs. British English. -- Beland (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a MOS:ENGVAR matter, it's (sensibly) a matter of function in the sentence: "a dispute about right of way" vs. "a right-of-way dispute"; or (much less sensibly) a matter of house style – there may be some publishers somewhere who insist on hyphenating things like this at all occurrence, but WP is not among them, and says clearly to not do this except in the case of a compound modifier.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current distinction is a good way to organize this topic, and the existing articles don't seem well-scoped by their intros. It is unclear which category the specific examples given in Right-of-way (property access) (e.g. a specific power line in Florida) and Right of way (transit) (e.g. Howe Street Stairs) actually qualify under the legal scope given for each of those articles; there are no citations supporting the implied status of either. Right-of-way (property access) is also unsatisfyingly short.

My recommendation would actually be to merge all this into a single article, Right of way, and move the disambiguation page to Right of way (disambiguation). This one article would explain all the concepts in the "Legal concept" section except for yielding-in-traffic rules. There needs to be an overview explaining all the different ways that transportation and utility corridors can be created. For some portions of road, railway, canal, or footpath, the government or a dedicated transportation entity actually owns the ground under the corridor, not merely an easement. (For example, when a right-of-way goes through a government-owned park. I think this also happens for motorways in the U.S. at least some of the time, given that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts here recently sold a large plot of non-linear land to Harvard University which holds Massachusetts Turnpike ramps it intends to demolish.) In other cases, those corridors are created by permission of the property owner, by purchase of a transportation easement without purchasing the land, or by longstanding adverse use creating an easement.

I had long assumed that the government actually owns the ground under all roads and railroads owned the ground under all their tracks. The fact that this is not the case in many instances needs to be laid out explicitly. We should explain that this is why it matters when a public road is declared "discontinued" or a railroad is declared "abandoned"; the easement property right reverts to all abutters and is difficult to recover, as opposed to railbanking. Legal status needs to be clarified for individual examples. For example, does the Canal & River Trust actually own the land under canals and towpaths, or does it just own easements from neighboring landowners?

If there is no consensus to merge, I agree with Trainsandotherthings that "public" and "private" are confusing disambiguators. I would also say that the topic should be divided by type of use, rather than legal category, since a single type of use can span all the legal categories, and it's easier to learn and navigate if e.g. all the facts about railroads are in one place. Trainsandotherthings' specific suggestions of "Right of way (infrastructure)" vs. "Right of way (public access)" are workable. It's unclear whether the current "transit" article is supposed to include motorized or non-motorized transport. It might make sense to explicitly make it "Right of way (non-motorized)" and just talk about the legalities of foot, cycle, and horse access. -- Beland (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: in the course of researching this, I came across the doctrine of the centerline presumption (formerly "strip and gore doctrine"), which deserves at least a mention and a redirect to one of these articles. Sample sources, some of which also have background on the variety of right-of-way ownership types in different jurisdictions: [6] [7] [8] [9] -- Beland (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Beland, All this started because there was indeed a single article called "right of way", which was split because it had become an unwieldy mess. [I was not involved in that discussion but I concur with its analysis and conclusions.] So it is really not obvious that recreating it would be an intelligent resolution. But if you want to propose that the previous decision be reversed, that is your right. You know the procedure.

The leads and hatnotes of the articles as they stand are constrained by their current titles. Changing those titles as we are proposing will create the space for a more logical presentation of each broad topic.

We spent some time on the deep legal status of the land under rights of way, whether public or private. We concluded that

1. it requires an equivalent knowledge of deep property law that we don't have (but maybe a future editor will)
2. it is hugely variable by national and even lower jurisdiction. Again, we have no expertise.
3. the perfect is the enemy of the good. If we do nothing until we have marshalled all the pertinent facts, we do our readers a serious disservice.
4. I suspect that very few indeed of our readers have that degree of interest.

The problem of splitting by motorised v non-motorised is that it doesn't really work. E-sooters, disability scooters are accepted on shared paths. In some places, even golf buggies are permitted. A "restricted byway" permits farm traffic but not Chelsea tanks. The legal status is again jurisdiction-dependent. Check out highway: you may be surprised. In practice, it doesn't matter very much because there are detailed articles about motorways, interstates, streets etc., so the "public"article will be mainly about foot, pushbike, horse and rowboat traffic.

There is however a clear distinction to be made with private RoWs, because they are reserved for specific users and uses, at specific times and under specific conditions.

Finally, there is a big trap of assuming that one's local experiences can be generalised internationally. The law on public rights of way in England is far more developed than most, for historical and population reasons.

There are no easy answers! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense that "non-motorized" doesn't fit. I'm glad the intention is to rewrite the intros to re-scope.

I have already proposed the articles be merged, here, in this discussion. I'm happy to just wait and see whether other editors here agree or disagree with that. Beland (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Prescription

In my editing, I have tried to emphasise that the article Right of way (transit) is concerned with rights of way established by prescription and Right of way (property access) is about a right of way established in some other way (granted, purchased, or reserved). Isn't this a significant distinction?

I'd also suggest that some of the problems raised in the discussion above can be resolved through revising the articles.

Has anyone read the full Encyclopaedia Britannica article on this topic? I haven't found time to go to the library! But it should be an invaluable resource here!Rwood128 (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

britannica.com has "Right-of-way (traffic management)" which directs readers to the "Traffic control" article, and "Right-of-way (law)" which directs readers to "Easement" and mentions in "Property law" and "Road design". The coverage on both topics is considerably shorter than Wikipedia's. -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If the problem is that Easement#By prescription is too long, and the purpose is to write an article about all different types of things that use that legal mechanism (private driveways, hiking trails, paths to utility holes) then the title of the detail article should be Easement by prescription.

If the purpose is to create an article that discusses all the ways that public access to private property can be created, then I agree "Right of way (public access)" is a good title.

Both these articles could in theory co-exist if there is enough material, but currently there does not seem to be, and based on content and discussions, it seems natural to go in the direction of topics divided by purpose rather than by type of easement.

The intro of Right of way (transit) asserts the article is scoped to prescriptive easements, but the content is not actually scoped that way. It covers public lands (which are not easements and are created by full government land ownership) and highways and hiking trails created by government ownership of an easement. It also covers entities which are ambiguous. For example, it has a picture of the Howe Street Stairs in Seattle, but there is no citation establishing that this right-of-way was created by prescription. Public use of a stairway on private property might have been established by prescription (if people have been tromping through for 20+ years), by necessity (if say, there is no other access to houses higher up the hill), by prior use (if the stairway used to be part of a government-owned public park), expressly by a written grant from the private property owner, by government purchase of an easement, or by estoppel or equity (if there was a lawsuit). If an article is talking about public stairways generally, it should not be scoped by legal mechanism of easement creation, and should arguably mention that some public stairways are based on fully government-owned land. -- Beland (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to me. I think we will get seriously bogged down in jurisdiction-specific legalities if we get into the murky details about how the RoW came to exist. I guess we must have it but please let's not scare off our readers, put it well down the body and minimise how much goes in the lead.

Just to repeat a previous caution: most public RoWs do not permit access but merely transit. You can't stop for a picnic or go fly a kite: that is "right to roam". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That sounds to me like an odd definition of "access". Do you see reliable sources that support the assertion that people can be denied "access" while simultaneously being allowed "transit"? -- Beland (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The CFR definitions Trainsandotherthings links to below says "'Access rights' mean the right of ingress to and egress from a property to a public way" which does not seem to include the right to stay and enjoy the place. -- Beland (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am a civil engineer IRL, so while I have a good grasp of the concept in relation to infrastructure, I do not have the legal expertise that seems to be needed to fully untangle the two distinct concepts here without creating confusion. If anyone's down for a bit of reading, this document from the Federal Highway Administration talks at length about right of ways in the transportation context and how utility ROWs interact with them and also mentions railroads. The definitions in this section of the CFR also appear relevant. Here, the CFR uses this definition: Right-of-way (ROW) means real property and rights therein obtained for the construction, operation, maintenance, or mitigation of a transportation or related facility funded under title 23, United States Code. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are two distinct concepts; there are several distinct attributes of rights-of-way that create overlap any way you look at it. Right-of-way easements can be government-owned or privately owned, give access to the public or give access to specific parties only, and explicitly consented to in writing or not. Examples can be found for all eight possible combinations of those attributes, and we can expand the last attribute into half a dozen specific ways that easements can be created in a single country alone. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Right of way (public)

Can we agree on this title, so long as the ambiguity relating to public owned railways is dealt with? Rwood128 (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, that title is confusing as to whether it's the ownership that's public or the access that's public. I agree with Trainsandotherthings that "(public access)" is better. JMF makes a good case that "(non-motorized)" is a bad fit. -- Beland (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, "public access" sounds reasonable. Rwood128 (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is how I settled on "public access". I wanted to pick the terminology that was the least ambiguous. I believe that of the names that have been proposed, "public access" is the clearest to the reader. At least in North America, most roads are also publicly owned, be it the municipality, state, or federal government. If there's a publicly owned water and/or sewer provider, it will also maintain pipelines which by extension would also be publicly owned. The primarily British term referring to the right of pedestrians to travel through private property as part of larger routes can most succinctly be described as "public access" which is also distinct enough from the other type of right of way that it alleviates confusion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but again, no. A public right of way confers no right of access, only of transit. You can cross but you can't leave the path.

Would "public right of way" meet Beland's ambiguity challenge? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Public right of way" is just as ambiguous. I would interpret that as a government-owned corridor, but I think you mean it as corridor the public has the right to pass through.

An easement does confer the right of access to the way in question. If access to a corridor is denied, people are unable to move through it, which is what happens when I see a sign that says "NO PUBLIC ACCESS". A right-of-way easement does not confer access to the part of the private property that is not part of the easement. I doubt the right to pass through includes the right to loiter, which also requires "access". Likewise, giving a plumber access to my house does not imply they have the right to take a nap in my bed, and giving a utility company an easement to access an electrical box on my lawn doesn't give them the right to plant flowers or sunbathe.

"Public access" is a phrase I see in lots of places directing me to an easement to get to the beach or shoreline or walking trail. If you do an image search online, you'll see tons. -- Beland (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering about the use of the word "transit" earlier today. If one is on a highway one has other rights in reality (though lawyers probably disagree – "technically" illegal?). On any long journey (of which any short path/highway can be a part) a person has to eat, drink, pause to rest ("loiter" (even nap), and answer the calls of nature – though peeing can, absurdly, lead to a littering fine in England. Furthermore there are rights of way that either end at a viewpoint, or are mainly used to reach that place, i.e Box Hill and Leith Hill, Surrey, England, etc; this includes beaches, lakes, and even churches. Rwood128 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

We are getting bogged down in legal niceties again. We need an article that is comprehensible to most people most of the time. If anybody wants more detail, let them read a law book.

• A right of way gives access to the strip of land that the right of way runs on: sorry, that is just what mathematicians call a trivial set.
• If there is a sign on the gate saying NO PUBLIC ACCESS, then that is exactly what it means: there is no right to enter or no right to roam.
• I don't know if anyone other than the National Trust participates, but the NT has lands in E&W that are explicitly designated and signed as "public access land". You are permitted to leave the RoW, you have access [sic] to the surrounding land.
• Ordnance Survey maps have a rubric that says that the presence of a path or track on the map does not necessarily indicate any public right of way [sic].
• In England, the signs say "Public Right of Way".
• I really really can't see anyone leaping to the conclusion that a public right of way over a farmer's land means that "the public" (whoever that is) owns that narrow strip. But if it really bothers you, then add a hatnote.

For almost everybody, almost all of the time, it really is not anything like as complicated as we seem to be trying to make it. Let's not lose sight of the fat that right now we are just trying to find a couple of concise titles; the ifs and buts go in the body. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

A hatnote doesn't solve the problem of making the titles of articles match the content of the articles in the mind of the reader. It should be obvious which right-of-way article they need to click on before they do so, otherwise they might lose their way to the article they were actually looking for.

If you're asserting the legal definition of "access" is "access to a wide swath of land" and that's how lots of readers will understand it, to argue that "public access" is not a good disambiguator, and I'm saying the objection is based on a misunderstanding of the legal meaning "access", then we should resolve the legal question in order to make the best choice. The fact that public access land exists in addition to public-access corridors doesn't mean that every "public access" sign means "you have access to the whole property instead of just where the fence or signs indicate where the right-of-way is".

I consulted a thesaurus and I can't find a better synonym than "access"; most of them are like "transit" in that they sound like something government-owned. It seems like British English often uses "public" in the for-the-public sense, which is why public school means the opposite in American and British English, and that is a disambiguation page on Wikipedia. The fact that "public access" works in both dialects is actually pretty lucky. -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I am not asserting a legal definition, merely common usage. If I give you access to my house, it means that you can go wherever you like. To dadd the qualification "access" is misleading. The only places where I have ever seen "public access" indicated is on NT 'access lands' (aka right to roam).

If it is the only way to move this forward, I will give way on the name of the article. Provided that we have a hatnote that makes clear that the right is only to cross and no more. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That works. -- Beland (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

To respond to all this in general, an "(infrastructure)" disambiguator seems to work well for one case. But "(transit)" does not; it means "passage across", so applies to both scenarios (to the extent it refers to motorized mass transport in particular, it's primarily a North Americanism). Using "(public)" by itself also does not work, being ambiguous because of the "public vs. private" distinction with regard to property and several other categories in various legal systems (I think someone meant here to imply "access by individual members of the public to private property" but it just as easily implies "public works", i.e. "infrastructure"). And "(private)" has a similar problem, just the inverse. Next, "(property access)" doesn't work, because both sorts of RoW involve that. Maybe "(easement)" would work? I suppose the question needs to be asked whether these subjects are being divided properly into two, whether they should be merged into a single topic, whether there are really three or more topics, and so on. "Think outside the box" for a moment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We got to where we are because a previous discussion determined to split the (then) single RoW. So we're already outside the box.

There is a natural division between (on the hand) the rights of passage open to all of us versus (on the other) the specialist cases: railways, canals, pipelines etc.

The term "easement" is very legalistic and is not widely used, let alone understood. And afaics, all RoWs are easements except priorité à droit. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I was wrting the following when 𝕁𝕄𝔽 posted the above comment. However, I have nothing to add on it.

I'm inclined to now support the merging of these two articles

The following definition and commentary looks useful. It defines right of way as applying to the "passage" of both people and to other things from A to B. I don't claim to know all the terms used here but I like the way this author explains things. There is a link to the full document.

Rights of Way

• Originally the term “right of way” referred to a right of easement, i.e. an easement, specifically for passage purposes such as for a railroad, pipelines, pedestrians, vehicles, aqueducts, etc. Since then, the term has come to have another meaning which is the land burdened by the easement even if the land has been dedicated in fee. Hence, in the common use of the term a “right of way” may be owned in fee, or something less.
• "Right of way" has been accorded two meanings in railroad parlance—the strip of land upon which the tract is laid— and the legal right to use such strip. Schuermann Enterprises, Inc. v. St. Louis County, 436 SW 2d 666 - Mo: Supreme Court, 1st Div. 1969.
• The fact that the term has two meanings is problematic particularly as related to railroad rights of way because the simple use of the term implies an easement even though the party using the term may intend its use to merely identify the strip of land. (Gary R. Kent, "Railroads and Rights of Way: Missouri". Missouri Society of Professional Surveyors. October 22, 2020

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle to merging. It may be that, now that we have a much clearer understanding of the topic, we can produce a coherent narrative rather than the mess that generated the decision to split. I have just two objectives that a merged article must deliver: when an editor writes something like There is a right of way from the village down to the river, that it lands somewhere sensible. And equally that a text like At this point, the trail reuses the former right of way left behind when the branch line to the Pacific railroad was abandoned. They should not arrive at a law book. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Those seem like excellent goals. -- Beland (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented the merge and move after drafting the backbone of the new article from scratch, hopefully to be more comprehensible and unify the topic. The result is rough (feel free to edit mercilessly) and (like the source articles) could use more citations. -- Beland (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well done. This is a great step forward in what seemed like an endless debate. Rwood128 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it works for me too. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Useful resource

I found this this source very useful in clarifying some of the issues we are struggling with. While the focus is on railroads, it is also useful more broadly: see Talk:Right of way (transit)#Useful source. Rwood128 (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)