<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 16:40:43 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 10:30:28 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why would every one need it? They'd only need one if the owners wished to
>>>>> enforce any traffic laws or rules just like plenty put up parking notices
>> and
>>>>
>>>>> charge for parking.
>>>>
>>>> So you’ve just created two categories of private land, one where the owner
>>
>>>> specifies which laws or other rules are applicable and one where some other
>>>> set of laws applies, which may or may not be the same ones that apply on
>>>> the public highway. Any other refinements you want to introduce?
>>>
>>> Hows that so different to other laws? Someone can walk around bollock naked
>>> on their own property but good luck getting away with that in the high
>> street.
>>>
>>> Road traffic laws and requirements should cease to apply on all private land
>>> unless otherwise stated by the owner of said land. I don't see whats so
>>> complicated about that.
>>
>> So the owner doesn’t get to choose which laws to apply, it’s just none or
>> the same as the public highway?
>
> Are you having some kind of comprehension problem? The owner can choose
> whatever traffic laws he likes to apply, or none at all.
>
>

Don’t think it as simple as that.
Private as in no access by anyone that the owner would not give permission
to * or land that is privately owned but access has been granted to the
wider populace.
I’m thinking of a case where a farmer granted access to his field for
something like a village Fete or gymkhana which meant his field was now
open to the public, unfortunately he overindulged himself at the mobile
bar and became a bit of a Pratt showing off on some vehicle which was fun
till he hit and injured someone. As it was open to the public at the time
he got charged with drink driving despite it being his own field.

* I put it it like that because I occasionally drive on a farm track as it
is a useful short cut , I don’t ask permission every time but the owner is
a mate and doesn’t mind.

GH

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:18:09 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:25:27 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> Hows that any different to what happens with parking around the country?
>>>
>>> Because - and this is where we came in - some privately owned places are
>>> open to the public and subject to (some of) the same rules that publicly
>>> owned places are. You’re proposing to change that.
>>
>> And who decides what rules apply in these private places? eg: 5mph is not a
>> legal speed limit anywhere in the UK yet plenty of places such as National
>> Trust, apply it to their access roads.
>
>I thought you were saying there should be no rules on private land unless
>the owner decides - that sounds like it answers your question.

You were the one suggesting public rules should apply.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:49:57 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:25:26 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:31:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Would certainly work! Though if its set up as a motorway it probably has
>to
>>>
>>>>>> follow the same rules I imagine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? It’s private land, just like a supermarket car park or a farm.
>You
>>>>> want the owner to be able to set their own rules or have none at all.
>>>>
>>>> You'll probably find it isn't actually private land but simply run by a
>>>> private company.
>>>
>>> OK, so would a private company operating a road on public land (in the
>>> general case rather than a motorway) be allowed to set their own rules?
>>
>> Don't know.
>>
>>>> Aside from that they probably could set their own rules but no doubt the
>DfT
>>>> wouldn't allow it to be directly linked to the M6 if they did.
>>>
>>> Why not? There are plenty of places on motorways where the rules change.
>>
>> So you could be doing 70mph on a road with no exit and no ability to turn
>> around without having a valid license or insurance and the DfT would be
>> perfectly happy for that road to be contiguous with a public motorway?
>>
>>
>
>Actually I believe something like that happened where the A14 joins the M6
>after the junction was rebuilt. There was a stretch after the last exit of
>the A14 that was still the A14 but gave no further exit before it became
>the M6. That could trap motorway prohibited traffic (eg learners) who
>failed to take that last A14 exit.

Sounds like a nasty ommision on the part of the road designers.

On 15 Feb 2024 11:41:45 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> Are you having some kind of comprehension problem? The owner can choose
>> whatever traffic laws he likes to apply, or none at all.
>>
>>
>
>Don’t think it as simple as that.
>Private as in no access by anyone that the owner would not give permission
>to * or land that is privately owned but access has been granted to the
>wider populace.
>
>I’m thinking of a case where a farmer granted access to his field for
>something like a village Fete or gymkhana which meant his field was now
>open to the public, unfortunately he overindulged himself at the mobile
>bar and became a bit of a Pratt showing off on some vehicle which was fun
>till he hit and injured someone. As it was open to the public at the time
>he got charged with drink driving despite it being his own field.

Given it wasn't on a public road I'm surprised the police got away with that.
Was he convicted?

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:46:18 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

>On 15 Feb 2024 11:41:45 GMT
>Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> Are you having some kind of comprehension problem? The owner can choose
>>> whatever traffic laws he likes to apply, or none at all.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Don’t think it as simple as that.
>>Private as in no access by anyone that the owner would not give permission
>>to * or land that is privately owned but access has been granted to the
>>wider populace.
>>
>>I’m thinking of a case where a farmer granted access to his field for
>>something like a village Fete or gymkhana which meant his field was now
>>open to the public, unfortunately he overindulged himself at the mobile
>>bar and became a bit of a Pratt showing off on some vehicle which was fun
>>till he hit and injured someone. As it was open to the public at the time
>>he got charged with drink driving despite it being his own field.
>
>Given it wasn't on a public road I'm surprised the police got away with that.

If it was open to the public, then it's a public place. The drink-drive
legislation isn't restricted to public roads, or even any roads, it covers
anywhere that is, at the time of the driving, a public place.

And this story is an excellent illustration of why. Driving while over the
limit is just as stupid and dangerous wherever you do it. The idea that you
should be able to get away with injuring someone as a result of driving when
you're pissed just because it's on private land is the sort of suggestion
that only the drink-addled could ever come up with.

Mark

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:05:43 +0000
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>And this story is an excellent illustration of why. Driving while over the
>limit is just as stupid and dangerous wherever you do it. The idea that you
>should be able to get away with injuring someone as a result of driving when
>you're pissed just because it's on private land is the sort of suggestion
>that only the drink-addled could ever come up with.

I'm not saying it was wrong to prosecute, but you can break the speed limit
quite legally on private land, ditto driving an uninsured, untaxed,
unroadworthy vehicle. So where does one law apply regardless and another law
only apply on the public road?

On 15/02/2024 15:17, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:05:43 +0000
> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> And this story is an excellent illustration of why. Driving while over the
>> limit is just as stupid and dangerous wherever you do it. The idea that you
>> should be able to get away with injuring someone as a result of driving when
>> you're pissed just because it's on private land is the sort of suggestion
>> that only the drink-addled could ever come up with.
>
> I'm not saying it was wrong to prosecute, but you can break the speed limit
> quite legally on private land, ditto driving an uninsured, untaxed,
> unroadworthy vehicle. So where does one law apply regardless and another law
> only apply on the public road?
>

Well if the police did not prosecute him, the Health & Safety Executive
would probably "chase" him, for dangerous behaviour in a "workplace".

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:05:43 +0000
> Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> And this story is an excellent illustration of why. Driving while over the
>> limit is just as stupid and dangerous wherever you do it. The idea that you
>> should be able to get away with injuring someone as a result of driving when
>> you're pissed just because it's on private land is the sort of suggestion
>> that only the drink-addled could ever come up with.
>
> I'm not saying it was wrong to prosecute, but you can break the speed limit
> quite legally on private land, ditto driving an uninsured, untaxed,
> unroadworthy vehicle. So where does one law apply regardless and another law
> only apply on the public road?
>
>

You can do these things on *some* private land. I’ll bring you back to the
M6 Toll, which is private land. You can’t do these things on that.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 18:18:09 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:25:27 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hows that any different to what happens with parking around the country?
>>>>
>>>> Because - and this is where we came in - some privately owned places are
>>>> open to the public and subject to (some of) the same rules that publicly
>>>> owned places are. You’re proposing to change that.
>>>
>>> And who decides what rules apply in these private places? eg: 5mph is not a
>>> legal speed limit anywhere in the UK yet plenty of places such as National
>>> Trust, apply it to their access roads.
>>
>> I thought you were saying there should be no rules on private land unless
>> the owner decides - that sounds like it answers your question.
>
> You were the one suggesting public rules should apply.

No, I’m recognising that currently public rules do apply in complex ways
and wondering whether your “simplification” that private land should only
be subject to rules that the owners decide would actually make things any
simpler.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:17:51 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 15:05:43 +0000
>Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>And this story is an excellent illustration of why. Driving while over the
>>limit is just as stupid and dangerous wherever you do it. The idea that you
>>should be able to get away with injuring someone as a result of driving when
>>you're pissed just because it's on private land is the sort of suggestion
>>that only the drink-addled could ever come up with.
>
>I'm not saying it was wrong to prosecute, but you can break the speed limit
>quite legally on private land,
>
Not if it is a speed limit in a workplace or where relevant byelaws
apply. Not if it is a public place and your speed constitutes driving
without due care or worse.

>ditto driving an uninsured,
>
Not in a public place.

>untaxed,
>

>unroadworthy vehicle
>
Not in a workplace, not in a public place if they can stick you for
without due care to other persons present.

>So where does one law apply regardless and another law
>only apply on the public road?

In message <e6kisihajgsio8fpk2d8tb8mkj7q4haa2a@4ax.com>, at 23:15:57 on
Sun, 11 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:49:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <d49asihm9776t3j5jcs838c0uc8tsbjhqf@4ax.com>, at 19:11:56 on
>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:01:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <odl8si9d9a6ajcgl7nj9bpf28o3fsmfut9@4ax.com>, at 04:27:25 on
>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:50:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <uq09it$1g196$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:37 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>>>>>2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>On 07/02/2024 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm actually just as concerned about the alleged confiscation of the
>>>>>>>>pavement by Network Rail. I wonder if there's some brass-monkey
>>>>>>>>droppings saying where their land actually starts, rather than where
>>>>>>>> the anti-tank bollards are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is a it a public pavement or pavement within their boundary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's the question. I'm disinclined to look up the Land Registry, but
>>>>>>the general public walking past is clearly unsighted on the matter. And
>>>>>>the staff might be anywhere from poorly trained to plain enjoying
>>>>>>throwing their weight around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>LR site maps aren't inevitably all that accurate
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure you can find ones with errors, but all the ones I've looked at
>>>>were accurate within a few inches.
>>>>
>>>A few inches can sometimes make a significant difference. The boundary
>>>lines can often be somewhat more than a few inches when rescaled to
>>>1:1.
>>>"As a general guide, the width of a line on a 1:1250 Ordnance Survey
>>>map roughly represents 0.3 metres on the ground. The width of a line
>>>on a 1/2500 Ordnance Survey map roughly represents 0.6 metres on the
>>>ground. Ordnance Survey publishes expected confidence levels in the
>>>accuracy of their maps in terms of relative and absolute accuracy,
>>>which are summarised in Relative accuracy and Absolute accuracy
>>>respectively."
>>
>>Nevertheless, lines drawn on maps often indicate which physical feature
>>is the locator. For example the end of a wall, or even in some cases
>>which side of a wall. My last house in Cambridge the original deeds had
>>a map which was annotated with distances to the inch.
>>
>>My current house, which is a semi with a pitched roof, it's
>>inconceivable the intended boundary of the back garden isn't
>>aligned with the roof-line. So that's at most half a brick.
>>
>The registration is of the land rather than the buildings. IME you
>don't generally get references related to buildings other than when
>there are different registrations at different levels on the same
>land.

You also don't generally get buildings (which aren't involved in
flying freeholds) built partly on the owner's land and partly on the
neighbour's land. It is however quite common for buildings to be built
right next to the boundary.

But not always. Here https://maps.app.goo.gl/VYjCtzNuzgwdVpL88 the
boundary isn't the patio/black railings, but a couple of steps down.
The lower land belonging to the council as part of its open spaces.

Further along, however, the end of this stub wall marks where the
boundary is. https://maps.app.goo.gl/SphTuHzSsDjsf4XQ7

>In that latter respect the registrations around e.g. Tower Hill
>Underground station get a bit "interesting". WRT the land around me,
>the houses themselves might now be the most reliable reference points
>as they were uniformly constructed and in general have lines on the
>site plane which match to the equidistant points between adjacent
>houses or the walls betwen semi-detached and terraced buildings.

--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:19:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <e6kisihajgsio8fpk2d8tb8mkj7q4haa2a@4ax.com>, at 23:15:57 on
>Sun, 11 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:49:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <d49asihm9776t3j5jcs838c0uc8tsbjhqf@4ax.com>, at 19:11:56 on
>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:01:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <odl8si9d9a6ajcgl7nj9bpf28o3fsmfut9@4ax.com>, at 04:27:25 on
>>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:50:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <uq09it$1g196$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:37 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>>>>>>2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>On 07/02/2024 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm actually just as concerned about the alleged confiscation of the
>>>>>>>>>pavement by Network Rail. I wonder if there's some brass-monkey
>>>>>>>>>droppings saying where their land actually starts, rather than where
>>>>>>>>> the anti-tank bollards are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Is a it a public pavement or pavement within their boundary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's the question. I'm disinclined to look up the Land Registry, but
>>>>>>>the general public walking past is clearly unsighted on the matter. And
>>>>>>>the staff might be anywhere from poorly trained to plain enjoying
>>>>>>>throwing their weight around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>LR site maps aren't inevitably all that accurate
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sure you can find ones with errors, but all the ones I've looked at
>>>>>were accurate within a few inches.
>>>>>
>>>>A few inches can sometimes make a significant difference. The boundary
>>>>lines can often be somewhat more than a few inches when rescaled to
>>>>1:1.
>>>>"As a general guide, the width of a line on a 1:1250 Ordnance Survey
>>>>map roughly represents 0.3 metres on the ground. The width of a line
>>>>on a 1/2500 Ordnance Survey map roughly represents 0.6 metres on the
>>>>ground. Ordnance Survey publishes expected confidence levels in the
>>>>accuracy of their maps in terms of relative and absolute accuracy,
>>>>which are summarised in Relative accuracy and Absolute accuracy
>>>>respectively."
>>>
>>>Nevertheless, lines drawn on maps often indicate which physical feature
>>>is the locator. For example the end of a wall, or even in some cases
>>>which side of a wall. My last house in Cambridge the original deeds had
>>>a map which was annotated with distances to the inch.
>>>
>>>My current house, which is a semi with a pitched roof, it's
>>>inconceivable the intended boundary of the back garden isn't
>>>aligned with the roof-line. So that's at most half a brick.
>>>
>>The registration is of the land rather than the buildings. IME you
>>don't generally get references related to buildings other than when
>>there are different registrations at different levels on the same
>>land.
>
>You also don't generally get buildings (which aren't involved in
>flying freeholds) built partly on the owner's land and partly on the
>neighbour's land.
>
The natural consequence of that is that if the neighbour says/does
nothing for long enough then he can lose that land. The usual
exception is anything forming a party wall.

>It is however quite common for buildings to be built
>right next to the boundary.
>
>But not always. Here https://maps.app.goo.gl/VYjCtzNuzgwdVpL88 the
>boundary isn't the patio/black railings, but a couple of steps down.
>The lower land belonging to the council as part of its open spaces.
>
>Further along, however, the end of this stub wall marks where the
>boundary is. https://maps.app.goo.gl/SphTuHzSsDjsf4XQ7
>
>>In that latter respect the registrations around e.g. Tower Hill
>>Underground station get a bit "interesting". WRT the land around me,
>>the houses themselves might now be the most reliable reference points
>>as they were uniformly constructed and in general have lines on the
>>site plane which match to the equidistant points between adjacent
>>houses or the walls betwen semi-detached and terraced buildings.

In message <lpo8ti9itset5oq115mfl95p9bljt6vg98@4ax.com>, at 08:40:13 on
Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:19:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <e6kisihajgsio8fpk2d8tb8mkj7q4haa2a@4ax.com>, at 23:15:57 on
>>Sun, 11 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:49:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <d49asihm9776t3j5jcs838c0uc8tsbjhqf@4ax.com>, at 19:11:56 on
>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:01:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <odl8si9d9a6ajcgl7nj9bpf28o3fsmfut9@4ax.com>, at 04:27:25 on
>>>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:50:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <uq09it$1g196$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:37 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>>>>>>>2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>On 07/02/2024 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually just as concerned about the alleged confiscation of the
>>>>>>>>>>pavement by Network Rail. I wonder if there's some brass-monkey
>>>>>>>>>>droppings saying where their land actually starts, rather than where
>>>>>>>>>> the anti-tank bollards are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Is a it a public pavement or pavement within their boundary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's the question. I'm disinclined to look up the Land Registry, but
>>>>>>>>the general public walking past is clearly unsighted on the matter. And
>>>>>>>>the staff might be anywhere from poorly trained to plain enjoying
>>>>>>>>throwing their weight around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>LR site maps aren't inevitably all that accurate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sure you can find ones with errors, but all the ones I've looked at
>>>>>>were accurate within a few inches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>A few inches can sometimes make a significant difference. The boundary
>>>>>lines can often be somewhat more than a few inches when rescaled to
>>>>>1:1.
>>>>>"As a general guide, the width of a line on a 1:1250 Ordnance Survey
>>>>>map roughly represents 0.3 metres on the ground. The width of a line
>>>>>on a 1/2500 Ordnance Survey map roughly represents 0.6 metres on the
>>>>>ground. Ordnance Survey publishes expected confidence levels in the
>>>>>accuracy of their maps in terms of relative and absolute accuracy,
>>>>>which are summarised in Relative accuracy and Absolute accuracy
>>>>>respectively."
>>>>
>>>>Nevertheless, lines drawn on maps often indicate which physical feature
>>>>is the locator. For example the end of a wall, or even in some cases
>>>>which side of a wall. My last house in Cambridge the original deeds had
>>>>a map which was annotated with distances to the inch.
>>>>
>>>>My current house, which is a semi with a pitched roof, it's
>>>>inconceivable the intended boundary of the back garden isn't
>>>>aligned with the roof-line. So that's at most half a brick.
>>>>
>>>The registration is of the land rather than the buildings. IME you
>>>don't generally get references related to buildings other than when
>>>there are different registrations at different levels on the same
>>>land.
>>
>>You also don't generally get buildings (which aren't involved in
>>flying freeholds) built partly on the owner's land and partly on the
>>neighbour's land.
>>
>The natural consequence of that is that if the neighbour says/does
>nothing for long enough then he can lose that land.

You just never give up, do you? Corner case piled upon corner case.

>The usual exception is anything forming a party wall.

You mean I can't claim adverse possession for a party wall, or did you
have some other utterly irrelevant point to make?

--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:20:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <lpo8ti9itset5oq115mfl95p9bljt6vg98@4ax.com>, at 08:40:13 on
>Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:19:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <e6kisihajgsio8fpk2d8tb8mkj7q4haa2a@4ax.com>, at 23:15:57 on
>>>Sun, 11 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:49:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <d49asihm9776t3j5jcs838c0uc8tsbjhqf@4ax.com>, at 19:11:56 on
>>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:01:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <odl8si9d9a6ajcgl7nj9bpf28o3fsmfut9@4ax.com>, at 04:27:25 on
>>>>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:50:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <uq09it$1g196$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:37 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>>>>>>>>2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>On 07/02/2024 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually just as concerned about the alleged confiscation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>pavement by Network Rail. I wonder if there's some brass-monkey
>>>>>>>>>>>droppings saying where their land actually starts, rather than where
>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-tank bollards are.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Is a it a public pavement or pavement within their boundary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's the question. I'm disinclined to look up the Land Registry, but
>>>>>>>>>the general public walking past is clearly unsighted on the matter. And
>>>>>>>>>the staff might be anywhere from poorly trained to plain enjoying
>>>>>>>>>throwing their weight around.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>LR site maps aren't inevitably all that accurate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm sure you can find ones with errors, but all the ones I've looked at
>>>>>>>were accurate within a few inches.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>A few inches can sometimes make a significant difference. The boundary
>>>>>>lines can often be somewhat more than a few inches when rescaled to
>>>>>>1:1.
>>>>>>"As a general guide, the width of a line on a 1:1250 Ordnance Survey
>>>>>>map roughly represents 0.3 metres on the ground. The width of a line
>>>>>>on a 1/2500 Ordnance Survey map roughly represents 0.6 metres on the
>>>>>>ground. Ordnance Survey publishes expected confidence levels in the
>>>>>>accuracy of their maps in terms of relative and absolute accuracy,
>>>>>>which are summarised in Relative accuracy and Absolute accuracy
>>>>>>respectively."
>>>>>
>>>>>Nevertheless, lines drawn on maps often indicate which physical feature
>>>>>is the locator. For example the end of a wall, or even in some cases
>>>>>which side of a wall. My last house in Cambridge the original deeds had
>>>>>a map which was annotated with distances to the inch.
>>>>>
>>>>>My current house, which is a semi with a pitched roof, it's
>>>>>inconceivable the intended boundary of the back garden isn't
>>>>>aligned with the roof-line. So that's at most half a brick.
>>>>>
>>>>The registration is of the land rather than the buildings. IME you
>>>>don't generally get references related to buildings other than when
>>>>there are different registrations at different levels on the same
>>>>land.
>>>
>>>You also don't generally get buildings (which aren't involved in
>>>flying freeholds) built partly on the owner's land and partly on the
>>>neighbour's land.
>>>
>>The natural consequence of that is that if the neighbour says/does
>>nothing for long enough then he can lose that land.
>
>You just never give up, do you? Corner case piled upon corner case.
>
Not a corner case at all; it is a typical example of how to lose land,
often occurring if a fence has been wrongly positioned by accident or
design.

>>The usual exception is anything forming a party wall.
>
>You mean I can't claim adverse possession for a party wall, or did you
>have some other utterly irrelevant point to make?
>
A party wall is in practice joint property if the boundary goes down
the middle, you are not free to remove/alter your half without due
process. Neither side is on another's property (when it is a party
wall WRT the bounday) so the question of adverse possession does not
arise.

In message <cs1atipjhho1tcde5otn3ubb6jkd43m8mi@4ax.com>, at 20:28:14 on
Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:20:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <lpo8ti9itset5oq115mfl95p9bljt6vg98@4ax.com>, at 08:40:13 on
>>Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:19:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <e6kisihajgsio8fpk2d8tb8mkj7q4haa2a@4ax.com>, at 23:15:57 on
>>>>Sun, 11 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:49:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <d49asihm9776t3j5jcs838c0uc8tsbjhqf@4ax.com>, at 19:11:56 on
>>>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:01:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <odl8si9d9a6ajcgl7nj9bpf28o3fsmfut9@4ax.com>, at 04:27:25 on
>>>>>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:50:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In message <uq09it$1g196$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:37 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>>>>>>>>>2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>On 07/02/2024 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually just as concerned about the alleged
>>>>>>>>>>>>confiscation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>pavement by Network Rail. I wonder if there's some brass-monkey
>>>>>>>>>>>>droppings saying where their land actually starts, rather than where
>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-tank bollards are.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Is a it a public pavement or pavement within their boundary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That's the question. I'm disinclined to look up the Land Registry, but
>>>>>>>>>>the general public walking past is clearly unsighted on the
>>>>>>>>>>matter. And
>>>>>>>>>>the staff might be anywhere from poorly trained to plain enjoying
>>>>>>>>>>throwing their weight around.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>LR site maps aren't inevitably all that accurate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm sure you can find ones with errors, but all the ones I've looked at
>>>>>>>>were accurate within a few inches.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A few inches can sometimes make a significant difference. The boundary
>>>>>>>lines can often be somewhat more than a few inches when rescaled to
>>>>>>>1:1.
>>>>>>>"As a general guide, the width of a line on a 1:1250 Ordnance Survey
>>>>>>>map roughly represents 0.3 metres on the ground. The width of a line
>>>>>>>on a 1/2500 Ordnance Survey map roughly represents 0.6 metres on the
>>>>>>>ground. Ordnance Survey publishes expected confidence levels in the
>>>>>>>accuracy of their maps in terms of relative and absolute accuracy,
>>>>>>>which are summarised in Relative accuracy and Absolute accuracy
>>>>>>>respectively."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nevertheless, lines drawn on maps often indicate which physical feature
>>>>>>is the locator. For example the end of a wall, or even in some cases
>>>>>>which side of a wall. My last house in Cambridge the original deeds had
>>>>>>a map which was annotated with distances to the inch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My current house, which is a semi with a pitched roof, it's
>>>>>>inconceivable the intended boundary of the back garden isn't
>>>>>>aligned with the roof-line. So that's at most half a brick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>The registration is of the land rather than the buildings. IME you
>>>>>don't generally get references related to buildings other than when
>>>>>there are different registrations at different levels on the same
>>>>>land.
>>>>
>>>>You also don't generally get buildings (which aren't involved in
>>>>flying freeholds) built partly on the owner's land and partly on the
>>>>neighbour's land.
>>>>
>>>The natural consequence of that is that if the neighbour says/does
>>>nothing for long enough then he can lose that land.
>>
>>You just never give up, do you? Corner case piled upon corner case.
>>
>Not a corner case at all; it is a typical example of how to lose land,
>often occurring if a fence has been wrongly positioned by accident or
>design.

Another trademark swerve. The topic is part of your **BUILDING** on a
neighbour's land.

>>>The usual exception is anything forming a party wall.
>>
>>You mean I can't claim adverse possession for a party wall, or did you
>>have some other utterly irrelevant point to make?
>>
>A party wall is in practice joint property if the boundary goes down
>the middle, you are not free to remove/alter your half without due
>process. Neither side is on another's property (when it is a party
>wall WRT the bounday) so the question of adverse possession does not
>arise.

"Yes" would have involved less typing.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 12:44:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <cs1atipjhho1tcde5otn3ubb6jkd43m8mi@4ax.com>, at 20:28:14 on
>Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:20:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <lpo8ti9itset5oq115mfl95p9bljt6vg98@4ax.com>, at 08:40:13 on
>>>Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:19:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <e6kisihajgsio8fpk2d8tb8mkj7q4haa2a@4ax.com>, at 23:15:57 on
>>>>>Sun, 11 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:49:46 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <d49asihm9776t3j5jcs838c0uc8tsbjhqf@4ax.com>, at 19:11:56 on
>>>>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 06:01:54 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <odl8si9d9a6ajcgl7nj9bpf28o3fsmfut9@4ax.com>, at 04:27:25 on
>>>>>>>>>Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 16:50:43 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In message <uq09it$1g196$3@dont-email.me>, at 16:02:37 on Wed, 7 Feb
>>>>>>>>>>>2024, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 07/02/2024 10:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm actually just as concerned about the alleged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>confiscation of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>pavement by Network Rail. I wonder if there's some brass-monkey
>>>>>>>>>>>>>droppings saying where their land actually starts, rather than where
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the anti-tank bollards are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Is a it a public pavement or pavement within their boundary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That's the question. I'm disinclined to look up the Land Registry, but
>>>>>>>>>>>the general public walking past is clearly unsighted on the
>>>>>>>>>>>matter. And
>>>>>>>>>>>the staff might be anywhere from poorly trained to plain enjoying
>>>>>>>>>>>throwing their weight around.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>LR site maps aren't inevitably all that accurate
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm sure you can find ones with errors, but all the ones I've looked at
>>>>>>>>>were accurate within a few inches.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A few inches can sometimes make a significant difference. The boundary
>>>>>>>>lines can often be somewhat more than a few inches when rescaled to
>>>>>>>>1:1.
>>>>>>>>"As a general guide, the width of a line on a 1:1250 Ordnance Survey
>>>>>>>>map roughly represents 0.3 metres on the ground. The width of a line
>>>>>>>>on a 1/2500 Ordnance Survey map roughly represents 0.6 metres on the
>>>>>>>>ground. Ordnance Survey publishes expected confidence levels in the
>>>>>>>>accuracy of their maps in terms of relative and absolute accuracy,
>>>>>>>>which are summarised in Relative accuracy and Absolute accuracy
>>>>>>>>respectively."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nevertheless, lines drawn on maps often indicate which physical feature
>>>>>>>is the locator. For example the end of a wall, or even in some cases
>>>>>>>which side of a wall. My last house in Cambridge the original deeds had
>>>>>>>a map which was annotated with distances to the inch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My current house, which is a semi with a pitched roof, it's
>>>>>>>inconceivable the intended boundary of the back garden isn't
>>>>>>>aligned with the roof-line. So that's at most half a brick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The registration is of the land rather than the buildings. IME you
>>>>>>don't generally get references related to buildings other than when
>>>>>>there are different registrations at different levels on the same
>>>>>>land.
>>>>>
>>>>>You also don't generally get buildings (which aren't involved in
>>>>>flying freeholds) built partly on the owner's land and partly on the
>>>>>neighbour's land.
>>>>>
>>>>The natural consequence of that is that if the neighbour says/does
>>>>nothing for long enough then he can lose that land.
>>>
>>>You just never give up, do you? Corner case piled upon corner case.
>>>
>>Not a corner case at all; it is a typical example of how to lose land,
>>often occurring if a fence has been wrongly positioned by accident or
>>design.
>
>Another trademark swerve. The topic is part of your **BUILDING** on a
>neighbour's land.
>
Whether it is a building or a fence, the same applies if it results in
occupation of your neighbours land to the exclusion of your neighbour.

>>>>The usual exception is anything forming a party wall.
>>>
>>>You mean I can't claim adverse possession for a party wall, or did you
>>>have some other utterly irrelevant point to make?
>>>
>>A party wall is in practice joint property if the boundary goes down
>>the middle, you are not free to remove/alter your half without due
>>process. Neither side is on another's property (when it is a party
>>wall WRT the bounday) so the question of adverse possession does not
>>arise.
>
>"Yes" would have involved less typing.
>
Did nobody ever tell you to show your working?