Jump to content

Talk:Right of way (transit)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge. (2014)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

not done

I propose to merge Right-of-way (transportation) here and to make this topic the primary topic for the title, "Right of way", as these are closely related concepts falling under the general concept of there being a "right" for parties (ranging from individuals to transportation conglomerates) to access otherwise privately held land for purposes beneficial to the public. bd2412 T 13:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merger / oppose moves the difference is not semantic. The reserved land that is not currently a "way" is not usable as a path. While the public throughway article is about an existing path that can be traversed. It would be the same difference as an empty lot and a highrise building. The empty lot can be built into a building but should not be considered a building. The concept of a public throughway that is not a government maintained route is does not seem to be practised outside the British Isles, as this article is only about the Irish/British example. The reservation of land for public use, and its expropriation (eminent domain) that occurs in establishing the right-of-way is different from the concept shown here. The right to build a pipeline, transmission line, rail line, highway, is clearly separate from this concept that appears in Ireland and the UK, which has nothing to do with building a transportation line, but is a reservation to use as a footpath or bridlepath, without improvement, where access is granted, while the other access is not publicly granted until the road is built. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The American sense of ROW is an actual linear strip of land, owned or otherwise leased by the transportation authority or company. You might say something like "the bike path was built in the right-of-way of Interstate 80, 20 feet from the eastbound shoulder" or "a 50-foot right-of-way was bought to allow for more than one track". I'd probably call the British concept a "public easement", something which does exist in the U.S. but is usually explicitly defined by deed. --NE2 13:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Right-of-way (transportation) seems to have much in common with the article Easement, so, perhaps, it should be merged with that first of all. Then another merge might be considered later.

  • Separate pages of course exist for rights of way in England and Wales and for Scotland. Perhaps they should be merged here?
  • Some clarification about the British term and the usage in the US, and elsewhere, is needed in the Right of way article.
  • What about the British Commonwealth? Is there no such thing as right of way in the British sense elsewhere?
  • There should also be some discussion of the law relating to access to the foreshore.

Rwood128 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested moves (2014)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus for a merge also. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– I propose to merge the related concepts of Right of way (public throughway) and Right-of-way (transportation) (both stubby articles at the moment), and to move the resulting article to the primary topic title, Right of way, with variations like the existing Right-of-way redirecting to it. The distinction between the terms is semantic, one being the right itself and the other being a strip of land provided to facilitate the right (much like there is an abstract idea of "divorce" and a piece of paper that grants "a divorce"). With respect to primacy, the "right-of-way" while driving does not have its own article, the practice in fencing is obscure, and the various films by this name are virtual non-entities. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC) bd2412 T 13:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merger / oppose moves the difference is not semantic. The reserved land that is not currently a "way" is not usable as a path. While the public throughway article is about an existing path that can be traversed. It would be the same difference as an empty lot and a highrise building. The empty lot can be built into a building but should not be considered a building. The concept of a public throughway that is not a government maintained route is does not seem to be practised outside the British Isles, as this article is only about the Irish/British example. The reservation of land for public use, and its expropriation (eminent domain) that occurs in establishing the right-of-way is different from the concept shown here. The right to build a pipeline, transmission line, rail line, highway, is clearly separate from this concept that appears in Ireland and the UK, which has nothing to do with building a transportation line, but is a reservation to use as a footpath or bridlepath, without improvement, where access is granted, while the other access is not publicly granted until the road is built. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The overarching concept, however, is still the use of privately owned land for some public purpose, whether that purpose is immediate or can only be realized when something is built there, and whether that purpose is for individual travel or conveyance of mass transit or a utility. bd2412 T 21:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in practice and in principle. The idea is the same and if it has to be a WP:CONCEPTDAB, so be it. Red Slash 20:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sounds sensible to discuss these two inextricably related topics of the same name be discussed together.--Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was under the impression that there was maybe some difference in usage between the two terms in terms of the actual ownership of the land, but they both seem to be related in that as well, as a type of easement of private property. I think, then, that we need to be cognizant of how such a merged article would compare and contrast with other related topics like public land, public domain, etc. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merging British articles with this? (2014)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rights of way in England and Wales not merged; Rights of way in Scotland merged in 2014

I have proposed merges into this article on the Talk pages for Rights of way in Scotland and Rights of way in England and Wales. Rwood128 (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rights of way in Scotland (2014)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merged per discussion at talk:Rights of way in Scotland on 15 October 2014

Article merged: See old talk-page talk:Rights of way in Scotland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

1979 Fifth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary

[edit]

"In the 1979 Fifth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary, the definition of "right-of-way" had changed to accommodate the change of meaning over time. This is the 1979 definition:

"Right of Way. Term 'right of way' sometimes is used to describe a right belonging to a party to pass over land of another, but it is also used to describe that strip of land upon which railroad companies construct their road bed, and, when so used, the term refers to the land itself, not the right of passage over it. Bouche v. Wagner, 206 Or. 621, 293 P.2d 203, 209." http://www.trailofshame.com/I-Words-ROW.html Fxm12 (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Edit "Crown land in Canada" Section

[edit]

I’d like to request an edit to the “Crown land in Canada” section. I propose that, in the spirit of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation commission report findings into the treatment of Indigenous people in Canada, the language in final paragraph be strengthened.

Currently, it reads that “The aboriginal peoples in Canada may have specific rights on Crown land and have claimed ownership of some Crown land.” If this sentence were to recognize the validity of Indigenous land treaties with the British head of state, it might read “the aboriginal peoples in Canada have specific rights on Crown land established under treaties signed with the British Empire, of which Canada is a self-governing entity within, and have claimed ownership of some Crown land.”

I suspect this kind of edit might be controversial. I’m not sure if clause “of which Canada is a self-governing entity within” is needed. The proposed edit is just a rough suggestion. I’m sure something better will come up from the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.117.134 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true.

[edit]

"In the United States, a right-of-way is normally created as a form of easement. The easement may be an easement appurtenant, that benefits a neighboring property, or an easement in gross, that benefits another individual or entity as opposed to another parcel of land."
In the United States, major highways are built on purchased land, including all of the Interstate Highway System. For the Interstate Highways, that land was purchased with 90 percent Federal funds, and so it is 90% Federally owned, and 10% state owned.24.121.195.165 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that there is a form of easement commonly referenced as a right-of-way. That's a separate matter from referring to a right of way for public travel over a publicly owned road. You're not going to get a full picture of the law or use of terminology in the U.S. from a two-sentence subsection -- if somebody wants to expand upon the information, that would be helpful. Arllaw (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The passage is referring to the British usage of the term. For highways see Right-of-way (transportation). Rwood128 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The IP above is incorrect on the ownership of the Interstate Highway System. Aside from individual segments that may be exceptions, the states own it. The federal government may have financed it at a 90:10 ratio, but they did not retain any ownership. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lede doesn't make it sufficiently clear that this article is about access on foot, by bicycle, or on horseback (and maybe by boat?). It starts from British usuage and there is the other article, Right-of-way (transportation), that deals with highways, railways, and pipelines. I'll try and fix this. Rwood128 (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I find the distinctions between the articles to be weird. Pipelines wouldn't be transportation in the same sense as highways and railways because a pipeline doesn't transport people, yet pedestrians, bicycles and horses would be types of human transportation. Perhaps these distinctions need to be discarded and the two articles merged together to explain the variations on the concept of a right-of-way, regardless of the ownership of the underlying property? Railroads may be built on an easement or on land directly owned by the railroad company, for example. Imzadi 1979 → 17:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about rights of way that relate to footpaths, bridleways and trails generally–including waterways. I wonder to what extent that this is a British usage (see, for example Rights of way in England and Wales)? The article Right-of-way (transportation) is about commercial transportation routes. Oil and electricity are transported (carried) along such routes, along with more obvious forms of transportation. A merge was considered in the past, but it seems to me that the distinction is a useful one. Rwood128 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate text in the lede

[edit]

It currently says: A footpath is a right of way that legally may only be used by pedestrians. A bridleway is a right of way that legally may be used only by pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians, but not by motorised vehicles. This not accurate; a footpath dsecribes the character of a path i.e. one used by pedestrians. It may or may not be a right of way, similarly with a bridleway, whereas 'public footpath' and public bridleway' do fit those definitions (in England and Wales at least; I can't speak for other legal settings). Geopersona (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 May 2024

[edit]
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: moved. Clear consensus to move, but no consensus on where to move to. Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, I am moving this to Right of way (public throughway), the pre-2014 title of this article.

Editors who disagree with this choice may open a new RM at any time, as well as opening a proposed move or merge for Right-of-way (property access), which some editors noted was insufficiently disambiguated from this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Do not think this is the primary topic for this term. I expected to be taken to a page about the traffic term. The disambiguation page should be the PT, or maybe there needs to be a dab concept article, to clarify all these related but different terms. Natg 19 (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There might be some WP:ENGVAR subtleties I'm not picking up here. How is this different from an easement? 162 etc. (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @162 etc. no idea, but there is a separate article (right-of-way (property access)). Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @162 etc.: an easement allows a third party a use of property without owning it. In my experience, most roadways though are not easements, and the agency maintaining the roadway owns the land underneath it. If a state department of transportation is building a new highway segment, or widening an existing one, they purchase the land needed, using eminent domain if necessary. If the highway is to be a freeway, they'll purchase the access rights from adjacent property owners because access to the freeway is limited to the interchanges along it. The land owned for the roadway and adjacent clear space is collectively the right-of-way.
    The distinction between easement and ownership also comes into play if the roadway section is abandoned. In that case, if the roadway segment is removed or severed from the rest of the network and leaves public traffic usage, then the agency is free to sell that land as surplus property. If they only had an easement, full control of the land would revert to the underlying landowners as the easement for the roadway would terminate. Imzadi 1979 → 02:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be describing Right-of-way (property access). This article (Right of way) refers to "the legal right (...) to pass along a specific route through property belonging to another" (ie. there is no transfer of the land itself from the property owner to the state.) So my confusion remains. 162 etc. (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was previously discussed in 2014[1]. 162 etc. (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support clearly the property access concept is more primary. This should be right of way (pathway) perhaps -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't change. I suspect most readers interested in the traffic term, would first search under traffic, rather than right of way – but that is pure conjecture! The current re-direction is fine. Rwood128 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support disambiguation - no primary topic, taking the traffic term into consideration. I don't have a clear opinion on the best title, but we could just default to using the pre-2014 title, Right of way (public throughway). (Ultimately, I am failing to wrap my head around the distinction between the unhyphenated and hyphenated variants of the legal term; I feel like this distinction may have been a Wikipedia innovation since I can't find any Google results discussing it, so perhaps these two articles can be merged into a single article at Right of way (easement). But I'll support Right of way (public throughway) as a placeholder just to move the RM along, and then we can have a separate discussion over revamping the two articles on the legal concept.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes we need to begin by clearly distinguishing the different ways that the phrase "right of way is used". I wonder to what extent confusion may be created because of differences in how this term is used in different English-speaking countries? Rwood128 (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry Natg 19 if my recent comments were confusing. I was trying to reply to the previous entry by Buidhe, but must admit to being somewhat lost here – I haven't had time to properly concentrate on the topic. Your early comment: "maybe there needs to be a dab concept article, to clarify all these related but different terms", is useful and I have begun working on an umbrella article.
Relisting comment: Consensus that this is not the primary topic, but no consensus on what to move it to. Relisting to give time for further discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to merge these various articles, though it maybe we need to create a new article, for those rights of way relating to paths, trails, bridleways, etc? Regarding "public rights of way", there are, however, two types: "legal right, established by grant from a landowner or long usage (i.e., by prescription)". Perhaps the phrase "property access" is confusing? Should public and private access (by private corporations/utilities) be better differentiated?
Confusion may to arise from differences in how terms are used, and with the law, in different English speaking countries. Hope this is helpful? Rwood128 (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: The disambiguation move is being delayed. The consensus to meet now is whether to 1) rename to Right of way (public throughway) 2) rename to Right of way (public use) 3) rename to Right-of-way (property access). Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Transport, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Highways, and WikiProject Law have been notified of this discussion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @162 etc., @BD2412, @BarrelProof, @Buidhe, @Imzadi1979, @King of Hearts, @Natg 19, @Rwood128, and @65.92.244.237 for the above summary. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Safari ScribeEdits! Talk!, I'd like to add a 4th option: Create a new article Public Rights of Way using material from this article, and not change the name of the current article. The current discussion of public rights of way would then be reduced to a summary. Rwood128 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not averse to any of the proposed solutions. Perhaps the best thing would be to have a broad concept article at this title. BD2412 T 18:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No !vote from me. I'd just like to note that the status quo has Right of way and Right-of-way pointing to different targets, and that doesn't seem justified. Hyphens, or a lack thereof, don't indicate any particular definition. 162 etc. (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. There are ten entries listed upon the Right of way (disambiguation) page, with little indication that the legal concept is primary over the combined notability of the remaining nine entries. As for the parenthetical qualifier, since the dab page entry describes it as "a legal concept relating to access across privately owned land", an acceptable disambiguation might be represented by Right of way → Right of way (legal concept) or, if preferred by consensus, Right of way → Right of way (legal right). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs), I have revised the disambiguation page, in light of your comment. Rwood128 (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My edits to the disambiguation page were reverted. I was correcting errors and I fail to see how that relates to this name change discussion. I have worked further on inmproving that page. If there are any objections please start a discussion there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 01:17, June 5, 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, and would prefer Right of way (easement) for concision, though I could live with Right of way (public throughway) Right of way (property access). 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"). While I'm certainly familiar with both of these legal senses, I agree strongly with the nominator that the traffic sense is by far the primary one, since virtually everyone who can drive is familiar with it, while the easement sense is familiar only to lawyers and some real-estate owners.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC); rev'd. 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish, not only lawyers and real estate owners, but anyone concerned with recreational access, especially in the countryside, but I'm also interested in urban rights of way for pedestrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 13:06, June 5, 2024 (UTC)
    Okay, fine, a third class of consisting of activists. Still, the total combined to orders of magnitude fewer than those who can drive and have had motorist and pedestrian right of way drilled into their heads since their teenage-years divers' ed classes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish moving this article to "property access" does not really work, as that title is already occupied by a different article. Unless you are saying that the property access article should be moved to easement or "unhyphenated". I am pretty confused what the difference between the two articles are, so probably disambiguation or some sort of merger is best. Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I copy-pasted the wrong sample article title; fixed. Disambiguation already exists at Right of way (disambiguation) and distinguishes these two propery-related legal senses and some others. I can maybe see those two being merged, since both deal with a public right to go through property and ultimately descend from the same legal doctrines. However, I suspect they're better for readers as distinguished topics, because one is about a governmental eminent-domain right to take private land, for fair compensation, to build a permanent public thoroughfare, while the other is about a temporary right of members of the public (gnerally no compensation involved) to cross private land to get from one place to another; they're different senses of both "public" and "access". PS: I'm not sure where the uncommon practice of private-sector tolls imposed to cross or otherwise access private land would fit into any of these articles; the present one seems to cover the overall subject of passage-across-private-land-by-citizens (either as individual matters for access to enclaved private land, or as broader matters of passage across private land to a public area by members of the public generally), yet the article never mentions the terms "toll", "compensation", "charge", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of reaching a consensus, I support anything that involves vacating the current article in favor of a disambiguation page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also a bit unsure what we want the scope of this article to be, as it now covers different aspects of the term "right of way". It was more focused previously but has become more of a dab concept now. Natg 19 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Natg 19, see my comment above of 4 June. The current article surveys different kinds of rights of way, with links to more detailed articles; though it focuses on public rights of way. I suspect this emphasis originated back in 2014, and I was probably involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Public rights of way in the United States

[edit]

The section of this article dealing with the US is inadequate. There are clearly public paths, trails, and waterways in North America, some hundreds of years old. I quote from the East Coast Trail article: "The Trail officially began in 1994 "when a group of hiking enthusiasts started the construction of a coastal trail" that would make use of existing traditional trails that linked local communities along the coast of the Avalon Peninsula" Newfoundland, Canada (my emphasis).There is also the National Trails System, that includes the famous Appalachian trail. There is some discussion of N. American urban footpaths here: Alley#North America. Rwood128 (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous trails in the US

[edit]

Trails established by indigenous peoples that were used by Europeans settling N. America. Some became highways, while others have been incorporated into hiking trails more recently.

Rwood128 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American trails

[edit]

Can someone add some information re the kind of legal framework under which American long distance trails have been established (other than historic use)? Likewise GRs in Europe? Rwood128 (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rights of way in other countries

[edit]

Other countries, including Australia. Rwood128 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens

[edit]

I'm not a grammarian, so I am having difficulty in understanding why on occasions the hyphenated "right-of-way" is used? Maybe the hyphenated version was originally used for the land over which a right of way travels, comparable to "footpath", "bridleway" or "highway"? This could have originate (a guess) by how the hyphenated version is used in connection with railways. User: 223.255.229.79, as you intervened on this topic, maybe you can help here? Rwood128 (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easements

[edit]

A discussion of the similarities and differences between the legal terms "right of way" and "easement" is clearly needed here. Is there anyone with a law degree who can assist? See [2], for example. Rwood128 (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move 2024

[edit]

I'm confused. The name of the article Right of way has just been changed, by BilledMammal apparently, to Right of way (public throughway), without, as far as I can see, the discussion being finalised and an agreement reached. Also, shouldn't it be "thoroughfare" (throughway: American usage?). I have no problem with Right of way (public thoroughfare) though Public rights of way sounds better (more accurate) to my British/Canadian ear. Rwood128 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked the word "throughway", in my Oxford Canadian and Websters dictionary, as it was not known to me. Apparently it is an American usage and usually refers to an expressway, which is a motorway in England, or autobahn in Germany. But Wikipedia links throughway to thoroughfare. See also Thruway. It therefore makes no sense here – or at the very least is highly confusing. The correct word is thoroughfare. Rwood128 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the rename in principle because right of way should be a disambiguation. So I support that change.
But "public throughway" needs to be changed. "Thoroughfare" doesn't work though, as the intro to that article explains: A thoroughfare is a primary passage or way as a transit route through regularly trafficked areas, whether by road on dry land or, by extension, via watercraft or aircraft.[1] Originally, the word referred to a main road or open street which was frequented thoroughly.[2]. We are not discussing a "primary passage" open to all traffic. "Public right of way" has a clear meaning in the UK but I'm not convinced that it would disambiguate sufficiently in other jurisdictions. I'm stumped for the moment but meantime other suggestions may come forward? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I still find this all very confusing – a muddle. Where was the consensus for the move to Right of way (public throughway)?
I have just corrected the disambiguation page for Throughway, to what my dictionaries tell me. Rwood128 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwood128: You have done nothing there but break a redirect. It is best not to undertake technical actions if you do not understand their technical effect. BD2412 T 19:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised that I've grown rusty (tired/old!). but it would have been simple to correct the error. My apologies, BD2412. Rwood128 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As @BilledMammal: said, there was no clear consensus on the title, so he moved it back to its old page name. I see nothing wrong with the move, as that is in proper procedure. Feel free to open an RM to a new or better name if you wish. Natg 19 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to start a discussion – because of the erroneous use of throughway. I suspect
"thoroughfare" was the intended word. Note my correction to the link. Rwood128 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article begins: "In the context of thoroughfares, a right of way is a legal term". It is not about a highly regulated highway corridor, or motorway. No discussion is needed, surely. The word throughway was used once incorrectly in the article, until a moment ago.Rwood128 (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added that preamble to set some sort of conceptual boundary (and a reason to declutter). No doubt it can be improved.
Coming back to the name, how about right of way (path), as in footpath, cycle path, shared path? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New name

[edit]

Change to Right of way (public access). Change the associated article to Right of way (private access), or Right of way (property access). Rwood128 (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "access" generally means 'to' rather than 'through'. Also risks confusion with the specialised usage for grid operators. The "private access" (to land with no road frontage) case is a hair on the tail that shouldn't wag the dog. It would never be more than a three sentence stub. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look up transit in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

It is going to be difficult to come up with a succinct name that captures all the nuances without becoming an article in parentheses . So it seems to me that it would be more productive to write a good {{about}} hatnote. So how about this:

This redirect is about the right to cross private land without stopping. For the right to install or maintain network infrastructure, see Wayleave. For other uses, see right of way (disambiguation).

Would that work? Specifically, would it work with 'transit'? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted material

[edit]

There was an article, until a day or so ago, that surveyed all aspects of the term "right of way". The recent changes in effect deleted that article, called "Right of way" in favour of the disambiguation page. There was no consultation about this. Given the complexities of the subject, the deleted article served a valuable purpose, as well as expanding what the topic covered, to include closely related matters. It would have been better not to have deleted this material but rather to have changed the title, before creating this new article that is just on public thoroughfares. I have no problem with the new article but for the erroneous name. I believe I suggested such a "sub" right of way article previously. Rwood128 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwood128 huh? what deleted article? No information has been deleted, but the article titles have just been changed. I find the current article names better than the original situation. Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Natg 19, I have no problem with the creation of the new article (which I recommended), but significant changes have been made. The new article is concerned with only one aspect of rights of way. Not only that, if you check more carefully, you will see that some material has been deleted. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_of_way_%28public_throughway%29&diff=1228899396&oldid=1227734537>
There is still a need for an overview article, so please restore the one deleted – with a new name.Rwood128 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "in charge" of this article, so if you have an issue with content being changed, you can revert it yourself or talk to those editors who changed things. There is actually "no one" in charge of these articles, as WP:OWN is a policy, which says that No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rwood128, the article as it stood was an impenetrable panjandrum, a coatrack of every possible usage. We now have a sensible disambiguation article that lists the major concepts and more focussed articles for each of those concepts. IMO, the position now is much much better. There are still loose ends and frayed edges to clean up but that happens for a few weeks after a major reorganization. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
𝕁𝕄𝔽, I was a litttle hasty wih my comment. Rwood128 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2024

[edit]
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: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. Editors who disagree with this move should feel free to open a new request at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right of way (public throughway) → Right of way (transit) – Per discussion at #New name above. The proposed name is succinct; the current name risks confusion with public highway. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a concurrent RtM, Talk:Right-of-way (property access)#Requested move 23 June 2024 that proposes Right-of-way (property access) → Right of way (railroad). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. There are too many meanings of the term to be covered usefully in a single article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Transit" doesn't give enough context IMO. At first glance it looks like some special priority on the road given to public transit vehicles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True but nobody has come up with anything better. (Nominations are certainly not closed, new ideas still welcome). The consensus thus far is that "public throughway" is not acceptable because it is far more misleading (because the confusion with public highway and even expressway). The article is about a right to cross third party land for walkers, riders and rowers: in most cases motorised traffic is not allowed except by bilateral agreement between neighbouring properties for access to land without a road frontage. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Transit

[edit]

This word does not appear once in the article. Furthermore, when I google "transit" most hits relate to transportation, especially buses. That is the only usage that I'm accustomed to (NL, Canada). Odd choice. See "Mass transit", Britannica online Rwood128 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC) On further thought I realise that I would use the old-fashioned phrase "public transportation", not "public transit" or "mass transit". But the main point is that the word sounds weird (to me) in relation to the subject matter in this article. But maybe it has become the "in" word in England and Wales? Rwood128 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a couple of minor changes. Feel free to revert. rwood128 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.29.248 (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We got so caught up in the other article that this one got forgotten about. Do you really want to start another R2Move? Or an R2Merge, which is where we nearly got to before getting bogged down again. I suggest we let this article stand as "good enough for now" (I have tweaked the edit by 142.167.29.248 so that it reads legal term used for the right of transit (right to cross) lands belonging to another or others. Yes, "mass transit" is a specifically CA/US usage of wikt:transit best known in greater metro areas, but it is not the only one.

transit (countable and uncountable, plural transits)
1 The act of passing over, across, or through something.
2 The conveyance of people or goods from one place to another, especially on a public transportation system; the vehicles used for such conveyance.
3 (astronomy) The passage of a celestial body or other object across the observer's meridian, or across the disk of a larger celestial body.
4 A surveying instrument rather like a theodolite that measures horizontal and vertical angles.
5 (navigation) An imaginary line between two objects whose positions are known. When the navigator sees one object directly in front of the other, the navigator knows that his position is on the transit.
6 (British) A Ford Transit van, see Transit.
7 (Canada, US) Public transport.

"For now" means "for as long as it takes to reach a way forward at talk:Right of way (property access) (which really is a terrible misnomer, without any redeeming features whatever, to my eye). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to do anything further. Let this confusing title stand. The reference to Wikidictionary is pointless. I checked OED – "transit" isn't a word I readily use. You should visit Transit (also google the word). Rwood128 (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC) This also "exists" Right of way (rail)! And, of course Right of way (traffic). Rwood128 (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Concise OED agrees with Wiktionary, same first definition of the word.
The issue here is the meaning of a word. Transit (disambiguation) lists things called "transit" (whose names, btw, are generally derived from the abstract concept).
Just to be clear: I am not here to defend Right of way (transit) (the article, not the name) as a long term solution. It seems to me that sorting out Right of way (property access) is the immediate priority: that done, this article can be merged into it. In the meantime, at least it provides something half-way sensible in response to most people's experience of country-side walking, riding and canoeing. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good.
Best of luck. Rwood128 (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is already beyond doubt that my first proposal for that article ["...(railroad)] was based on a misconception and has failed. It just needs an admin to put it out of its misery. The episode makes clear that I am not the person to clean up that mess, it needs expertise in international law or at least Common Law. Way above my pay grade.
No. The split proposal was agreed by consensus, so it makes no sense to recreate it. If we can get one that is just about the right to get from A to B by any means and for any reason, we will be doing wonderfully. But it has to be done by someone who knows the law. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements still can be made. Rwood128 (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source

[edit]

The following is an extract from what looks to be a valuable resource that may help clarify things a little? And not just railroads.

  • 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

Rwood128 (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And another two:

(6)     In this Part of this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say.—
" footpath " means a highway over which the public have a right of way on foot only, other than such a highway at the side of a public road ;
" bridleway " means a highway over which the public have the following, but no other, rights of way, that is to say. a right of way on foot and a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the highway;
" horse " includes pony, ass and mule, and " horseback " shall be construed accordingly;
" public path " means a highway being either a footpath or a bridleway;
" right of way to which this Part of this Act applies " means a right of way such that the land over which the right subsists is a public path;
" road used as a public path " means a highway, other than a public path, used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths or bridleways are so used.

(7)     A highway at the side of a river, canal or other inland navigation shall not be excluded from any definition contained in the last foregoing subsection by reason only that the public have a right to use the highway for purposes of navigation, if the highway would fall within that definition if the public had no such right thereover.

— National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 | UK Public General Acts 1949 c. 97 PART IV Ascertainment of footpaths, bridleways and certain other highways

and

40     Compulsory powers for creation of public rights of way
(1)Where it appears to the council of a county borough or county district that there is need for a public right of way on foot, or on foot and on horseback, over land in their area and they are satisfied that, having regard to—
[...]

it is expedient that the right of way should be created, the council may by order (hereinafter referred to as a " public path order") made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Minister create a public right of way over the land.

— National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 | UK Public General Acts 1949 c. 97 PART IV Creation of new public...

England and Wales only, I assume. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These seem less useful with regard to the overall situation. I tried researching French law but couldn't find much of use – though I got a sense that there are close similarities. A glossary indicating the terminological differences between different jurisdictions might be useful
Anyhow, I look forward to the renaming – hope there's champagne! Rwood128 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it interesting that none of the half-dozen Acts includes a definition of the term "right of way". Well, as we have found in these discussions, "it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less" --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_of_way_(transit)&oldid=1236460481"