Talk:The Ridgeway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is part of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to better organize information in articles related to Berkshire. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of the UK Roads WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's road network. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

The Ridgeway is a wonderful British treasure! (please sign this comment)

The edits made on 29th and 30th March, whilst adding a lot of useful information, also contain a lot of text that written in a style that isn't suitable for an encyclopaedia and reads more like a tourism brochure (no offence intended). Also, the replacement of the well known geographical reference 'River Thames' has been replaced by the local term 'Goring gap' which is unsuitable for use in an international encyclopaedia. I will go through the article and change the text back the correct factual style unless someone else does it first. Alexander-Scott 09:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Motor vehicles banned - The creation of the restricted byways referenced in the BBC article was not confined to the Ridgeway, or because of damage to the surface. It was because all 'roads used as a public path' were converted to restricted byways by the countryside and rights of way act 2000. I have updated the article to correct this. Alexander-Scott 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made the changes that I think are required and would appreciate discussion of them here so that they can be altered if required. Alexander-Scott 09:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Revert 2 Re: Revet 3 It's getting there... 4 Passive Voice vs Factual Changes

[edit] Revert

I have reverted the page for two of reasons:

1) While I appreciate the interest in this article, if a contributor wishes to add information please DO NOT use the passive voice (characterised by the verb "to be" and its conjugations such as was, were, has been, etc.). Any encyclopedia worth its salt avoids the passive voice like the plague, while tourism brochures tend to apply it (usually because little thought has gone into the writing). Also, avoid the use of the word "however" – the word is largely meaningless.

2) The more lengthy discussion concerning the debate on rights of way do not warrant a place in the "National Trail" section. If a contributor wishes to add more on this topic, a new section would provide a more appropriate venue.

Thanks (please sign this comment)

REPLY - Please see these links for guidance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TONE#Tone

Could we have some more opinions on this please? I feel that the article's content has been improved by the edits of 29th-30th March but the tone and style have been spoilt. Many of the changes that I made were factual, such as the reference to the CROW act and geographical references and these should not have been included in the reversion. I took the time to manually edit sections of the article to avoid a blanket reversion and it's very disappointing that you have not taken the same care. Alexander-Scott 10:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Revet

I meant no disrespect in reverting the article. I only want to maintain the absence of the passive voice. If you wish to put in a new section concerning the debate on the rights of way or included more factual information about BOAT (which it appears you have), I would be more than happy to include it and help edit the section. Again, sorry if my intentions were misinterpreted.

[edit] It's getting there...

Re the CROW act, please note that there is no 'National Trails Authority'. They are coordinated and funded by natural England http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ , and maintenance/traffic regulation is managed by the local authorities (country councils etc).

The CROW act was implemented by national government, and the restricted byway was primarily to end the existence of rights of way over which access was gained through historical use rights etc and replace them with rights determined by current legislation.

The Wikipedia article currently implies that the legislation was used on the Ridgeway to designate specific parts as having no vehicular rights (for whatever reason) but in fact all these parts were RUPPs and changed to restricted byways by default when the act was passed by parliament, not because anyone had selected them specifically as problem areas. The BBC article states this although not as precisely.

The article needs to be updated to reflect this. Alexander-Scott 12:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passive Voice vs Factual Changes

I recently made some factual changes and clarification of the CRoW act, and added a link to same. Someone reverted this because it was 'in the passive voice'. In future if you want to correct grammer please do so without losing the information that has been added. The wording and context that I used is important as it makes it clear that the CRoW is national legislation that has removed vehicular rights from parts of the ridgeway. I'm fed up with my edits being reverted because of grammer and losing important information in the process.

Once again, please take the time to CORRECT the grammar and IMPROVE the article rather than just reverting.

Thanks! Alexander-Scott 09:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)