Talk:Right of way

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport Mid‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways Mid‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of

Rights of way in Scotland was copied or moved into Right of way on 17 October 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of

Rights of way in Scotland was copied or moved into Right of way on 27 March 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution

for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Proposed merge. (2014)

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]
- Our easement article is focused on this American usage. Where do we broadly address the concept that the state can require property owners to surrender a non-possessory interest in their land through a number of different legal mechanisms? Perhaps we need an article on Non-possessory interests in land? bd2412 T 14:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, easement is one way in which a right-of-way can be acquired. Most highway rights-of-way are "possessory". --NE2 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then what is the supertopic of possessory and non-possessory rights of way? bd2412 T 15:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right-of-way (transportation), I suppose. This article currently badly-titled as right of way describes a certain type of implied public right-of-way. --NE2 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Then suppose we were to move that article to this title, and make the information currently in this article a subsection, clearly defining it as one kind of right of way? bd2412 T 17:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe. I'm not sure about all the nuances. --NE2 18:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm for painting with a broader brush here. There are various regimes by which the state can take away either your right to exclude or your whole bundle of property rights, in order to enable movement through your land for the public good - and here they are. bd2412 T 18:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        However, there's also the concept of the physical right-of-way - the land reserved for the transportation corridor. --NE2 19:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Still a subtopic of the same general idea (or of some general idea that can be written about under this title). bd2412 T 19:35, 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

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]

Am I right in thinking that there is no agreement to the merge and that the merge banner should be removed? Rwood128 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will remove the banner shortly, unless there are objections.Rwood128 (talk) 12:28, 24 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.

Requested moves (2014)

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]

Right of way (public throughway) → Right of way

Right-of-way → Right-of-way (disambiguation)

– I propose to merge the related concepts of

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)

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

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

]

Merge with Rights of way in Scotland completed -- see top of page. Probably it is best to leave England and Wales as is.Rwood128 (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's fine. bd2412 T 19:19, 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.

Rights of way in Scotland (2014)

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

"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

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.

"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

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

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

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.

A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log

Right of way → ?
Right of way (disambiguation) → Right of way

– 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)[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) 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]

After much thought, I support disambiguation. There are really three loosely connected primary meanings, but they are too disjointed to form a coherent
WP:BROADCONCEPT article. The first is the "right of way" as a right to traverse a piece of land, even if the land is never actually traversed; the second is the "right of way" as an actual physical pathway through the land; and the third is the traffic concept applicable not only to vehicles, but to pedestrians and bicyclists. BD2412 T 11:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Isn't time to act? I suggest renaming this article Right of way (public use). I also think that the hyphens should be removed from Right-of-way (property access), and will start a discussion of that page. See Talk:Right-of-way (property access)#Hyphens. Rwood128 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment contradicts your earlier !vote. 162 etc. (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Does that make my suggestion unacceptable? Rwood128 (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwood128 it is not "unacceptable" but just confusing. Your earlier vote was to keep everything as is, but now you want to change the title of the article. Natg 19 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be useful (1) to create a new article that focuses on the different, but related uses of the term? Also, (2) should this article be renamed? Rwood128 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwood128 huh? this entire discussion is about 2). Natg 19 (talk) 15:17, 21 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.
- I fail to understand why changing my vote is unacceptable or confusing. I was too hasty earlier. Rwood128 (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate no primary topic, no prospect for BCA (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realized that the article current name was adopted 21 July 2014 – previously it was called
Right of way (public throughway)
. Rwood128
Discussion re Right-of-way (property access) Talk:Right-of-way (property access)#Hyphens. Rwood128 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please bring this to a conclusion? The discussion has apparently ended but perhaps I'm too impatient? Rwood128 (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natg 19, I am wondering what your thoughts are about the recent changes to this article, including to the lede and a brief reference to the traffic term? Do they address the complaint that started this discussion? What further action would you like to see? Thanks for helping to improve the article by intervening here. Rwood128 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Also rename Right-of-way (property access) or merge, because the title of that article fits the description of the topic of this article. But I don't see a clear distinction between the two topics, as both seem to be concerned with a right to pass through someone else's property. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right of way (shipping)
.

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]

I have proposed changing the name of Right-of-way (property access) to Right of way (land grant): Talk:Right-of-way (property access)#Property access. The current title is a source of confusion. Rwood128 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public rights of way in the United States

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

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

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

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

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

Hyphens

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]