Report a problem

Review — 3

Existing problems reported with 3

  • PS that person wrote two reviews for this route and the other is for the correct route. So maybe it needs 3 authors, not just 3 reviews to trigger the snail. But then who made the access flag and why? Reported 16 Sep 2023
  • CORRECTION NEEDED TO THE ROUTE GPX: I have noticed that the GPX uploaded on route creation is incorrect. It carries straight on at approx. 10.2k to join the A339 instead of taking a right turn to follow the footpath. As per the route description, the second half of this route should be as Newbkin one. I do not recommend joining the A339 at this point and wouldn't have rated 3* if I had spotted earlier. At the moment, I think the only way I can correct this is to create a Newbkin three with the correct GPX but with the temporary path closure potentially in place until July next year it doesn't seem to make sense to have three routes all with the same path closure. Reported 22 Jul 2021
  • Settlement pages say "N people have contributed to Settlement X's Slow Ways", but it seems to be a simple count of reviews, not including authors of new routes or discounting repeated names. E.G. Edenbridge: it says 4 people should be 2 people, or maybe 3 if you include the original routes as a single anon. author. Not serious but it does seem to be a bug given that review numbers and number of routes drawn are explicitly stated (for SWays) elsewhere on the same page. Reported 24 Aug 2023
  • I've noticed this route doesn't appear on the progress map. Another route than I've done, Keiyeo2 also doesn't appear. I was trying to reduce the gaps! Reported 01 Jun 2023
  • Wrote a review and tried to upload photos. Tried both the upload button and drag and drop option in 3 file formats: (all under 1MB): HEIC (from iPhone), PNG (from Macbook), and JPEG (from Macbook). In every case I got an immediate "ERROR 500" message and was unable to return to my review so lost what I had written. Reported 06 Mar 2023
  • I just tried to write a review for one of the Plymouth-Plymstock routes today (22/05/2021), along with 3 photos, and I received an Error 500 message after submitting. Reported 22 May 2021
  • Spent ages writing a review of a route and then the site decided to time me out and deleted it. Also, uploaded 3 pictures and only the last one was shown. Reported 02 May 2021
  • I walked Cirfai two on 3 July and have submitted a review and a survey. However the route details are no longer visible. I just get an error 500 and a promise someone is looking in to it. By the way searching for a route from Cirencester to Fairford produces 3 results but only Cirfai two was visible until the above. The other 2 don't show anything. Cirfai one is presumably excluded because it's described as dangerous in two's description but three is a mystery. Reported 08 Jul 2023
  • I have tried to add a new KirHig route 3 times (twice yesterday and once today), but I keep getting Error 500. A new route appears with no data, so there are now 3 blank KirHigs (Two, Three, Four). Please can you fix this and delete the duff ones. I have a review, photos and survey ready to go! Cheers Reported 30 May 2022
  • 04.07.21 I was uploading my review of Pathar1 on which I had submitted the allowed total of 15 pictures that I had referenced in the written review. It appears to have deleted all but the 1st 3 pictures "Oops! An Error Occurred The server returned a "413 Payload Too Large". Something is broken. Please let us know what you were doing when this error occurred. We will fix it as soon as possible. Sorry for any inconvenience caused." Reported 04 Jul 2021
  • Photo upload problem to a saved review from Android. The second photo seems to overwrite the first, then the third also overwrote it again. I just saved at that point and no photos are showing yet, so not sure if 3 or just 1 uploaded. I.e. is it broken or just looking that way, or if I just need to be more delicate (I'd argue too delicate given the sometimes slow reactions of other parts of the site). Sorry it's bad news, I'm still excited to try the drag + drop on my laptop. Reported 25 Feb 2023
  • Hi, I've just reviewed TolMot1. It now has 3 reviews but its not been accepted as a Reviewed Slow Way. I think that's because a safety issue was flagged on the route. I can confirm that the issue (having to walk a long stretch in the road - no pavement or footpath) has been removed now. The relevant building works have added/replaced the pavement. My review has 3 photos of that pavement. So what happens now to get the route confirmed? It's a useful connection between some nice off-road sections, even if the route itself is somewhat urban. Regards, Luke Reported 24 Apr 2022
  • Hi, I wrote a review for a route, and saved it, but it does not display. I wrote is again, same thing. Are reviews working? Thanks Robert Reported 28 Apr 2021
  • After reflecting on this Slow Way, can I please revise my review down to 3 stars and flag the route for safety? I think the road from Truro to Tresillian is unsafe, having experienced it a few more times, and the alternatives TruPro two and three are much more sensible options. Reported 29 Jun 2023
  • Posted a review of this one (Walkin Two) about 3.30 this afternoon (03.06.2023) but it hasn't shown up. I posted it using the app: when I pressed 'submit' it appeared to be processing it correctly, counting up the photographs as it loaded them, and then returning me to the route page when done. But ... no review, no 4 stars :'( I'll hold off posting again for this route/any more routes until I hear back ... is it hiding somewhere or do I need to have another go? Cheers Jane Reported 03 Jun 2023
  • The end of the route between Kirkcaldy Promenade and the railway station should be changed, because the road from Abbotshall Road is private with no access to the station. From Whytescauseway, it should instead turn right and go via Hunter Place (past the bus station), Wemyssfield, and through the war memorial gardens, see: This also affects the start of the Kirdys route. Thanks. Reported 27 Dec 2022
  • The walk I've done using the app is not showing up in my account on the website when I'm logged in. Can we also report app bugs here too? 1. On the walk today the app crashed, when I reopened it, it allowed me to carry on from where I was (which was a relief). but it just marked my progress with a dotted purple line, and didn't update the distance correctly. 2. When I got to the destination, I didn't know how to tell the app I'd made it, and paused it, then ended it, and I think it didn't record the whole distance! 3. I want to submit a review in the app. When I'd typed it in I noticed that the Submit button was greyed out. I can't work out how to make it active. Thanks! Reported 26 Jun 2023
  • I was having a look at this walk with the intention of walking it. I ran out of time, so haven't tried it but... I noticed on the online map that the gpx doesn't start/end that close to the nodes of Euston and Paddington. It's already got 3 reviews and a snail so would be a shame to create another just for this correction, but it would be nice if the route was neat and tidy at start and end! Kind regards James Reported 24 Feb 2023
  • I reported this via Twitter last week but I think this is the better place for it. I would like to understand what happened to the four photo-only surveys that I submitted about two weeks ago (WESCOT 1, WESCOT 3, COTMEL 1 and BOTLON 2) before I submit any more. I got to the end of the process and completed the survey questions without seeing any errors, but none of these photo surveys are visible on the site. Using Firefox on an Acer laptop running Windows 10, the photos were all taken on a Samsung Android phone. The COTMEL 1 one in particular had a lot of photos and took over an hour to submit, so I am very reluctant to start it again. Reported 14 Jun 2022
  • This is a follow-up to your previous request #1100 "Problem with a Review: 7474" Hi Christie Thank you for your reply and apologies for my slow response. In deciding if my 'variation' warrants being listed as a new route I find several things in the 10 point methodology you listed are in conflict! I see the variation as being safer (point 1) as there is less walking along main roads. However it is less accessible for those with buggies or wheelchairs (point 3) as it goes along tracks in the green areas rather than paved paths. The variation is also in agreement with points 5 and 9 i.e. being more 'off-road' and 'be enjoyable and beautiful' as it goes through more green areas. The route variation follows the start of the Itchen Way, an established route, (point 10) which I'll add to my description. How do you balance out these conflicting points? I shall most probably leave my review as a review of the existing route rather than add it as a new route unless you advise otherwise. Many thanks David Reported 05 Dec 2022
  • Riverside path in Mold does not exist. Fallen into river. Could use nearby back lane instead. Dangerous crossing at grade of 3 lane main trunk road on bend. Better to use underbridge and public path from Wylfa roundabout. Will suggest new route in due course. Also website does not seem to recognise MOLD as a town name, nor to allow deletion/correction Reported 20 Apr 2021
  • Hi. On Tuesday 18.05.2021 I walked route Ellche (from Chester to Ellesmere Port). Yesterday I tried to submit a review and also undertake a verification. I had selected 15 photos (all less than 10MB). I tried to submit the report twice having taken ages to load-up the photos (which all showed up in photo preview after they loaded). However, each time I pressed submit after completing the verification section I got an 'Error 500: Sorry, something has gone wrong' message. Today I have tried again with 15 photos and got it again each time. I then tried with just 3 photos and the same has happened. I'm not sure if the issue is with me in terms of photos or text format or with the website etc? For example, in addition to the 15 photos my comments were fairly long - not quite an A4 sheet at font size 11 - but there is no indication of any word or character limit. Also, I first wrote up the comments in Word and then copied and paste to the Comments Box (so not sure if that's an issue?). SOS! Thanks. Paul Reported 20 May 2021
  • Please can you remove Maiasc Zero which is showing in my reviews waylist THIS LINK It's another blank one. However, please be careful about The text says there is no route for Maidenhead to Ascot, but the map shows my Skipton to Cross Hills route, although clicking that takes you to SkiCro Zero which is blank. I re-uploaded SkiCro Three which seems to be okay. There seems to be an ongoing occasional problem when uploading a new route, possibly when someone else happens to submit something at the same time. There is now no Maidenhead to Ascot at all, and my Skipton to Cross Hills disappeared (but I uploaded it again), and also when I added Preston Leyland (PreLey Two) it somehow got linked to Thorniehill-Barrhead near Glasgow as far as my waylist map goes Reported 12 Jul 2022
  • Please see my recent edits of the description and review of Weoher 2. I need to take down the existing .gpx and upload a tweaked one which I have ready. I have emailed Dan R-E about this but I know he has many other demands on his time and I was hoping that the Slow Ways tech team could help by giving me an email address to which I can send the tweaked .gpx so that they can take down the existing one and replace it with the tweaked one. Thanks and best wishes from Nic Howes. Reported 29 Jun 2023
  • "Bl---- Bonkers". I spent some time producing NEWTEI 2 because NEWTEI 1 suffered 2 significant flaws. 1: The original GPX was too imprecise, notably where it confused one reviewer into taking an inappropriate wrong turning at Shaldon Bridge to cross under the railway line. 2: A quite worrying apparent failure to understand and appreciate the safety restrictions on timing because the track is intertidal between the A380 bridge and Shaldon. I am concerned that this reviewer appears to have walked the route without due respect to the clearly displayed warning signs (or my description) on completing below half tide. He has in fact rated not the NEWTEI 2 gpx route but his route on going "off-track" (something which it is not possible to do successfully and which is never necessary anyway when completed below half tide). Not sure what (if anything?) needs doing. Reported 05 Aug 2023
  • I believe there is no safe crossing on the A1(M) between Stotfold and Caldecote although there are old rights of way on each side of the motorway here. I would recommend routing via Radwell and along Norton Mill Lane which goes below the A1(M), then a bridleway to Ashwell Road, then a byway from Ashwell Road to Ashwell (I have plotted this route, length 14.3 miles, but have not yet been able to upload it). Reported 23 Apr 2021
  • Hi, I reviewed a route (Levsto one) and indicated that it needed to be removed, as it passed through a high metal fence. I set up an alternative route (Levsto 2). I am a bit puzzled why Levsto 1 has been marked as ‘possibly verified’. Surely it could be marked as having a problem, or it even could be removed? Would it require another negative review before being removed? There is a similar issue with Stoden 1 and 2. I would survey routes if they had been verified. Thanks, Ian Vaughan Reported 25 Sep 2021
  • Dear Slowways This slowway begins after crossing the railway bridge and advises walkers to follow North Hill. This access is on a private estate and has been securely gated. There is an easy alternative that follows Trevarthisn Road and Menecuddle Road. I have added a map to my review to clarify this. I have no idea if the closure is legal or not but a local resident was most vociferous, also the alternative is reasonable and sees a lot of established foot and cycle traffic. I viewed this on a busy Saturday morning. I hope this helps. Julia Reported 09 Jul 2022
  • Update 02 April 2022. The seawall is now open as far as the station bridge at coastguard cottages. However, it is still necessary to cross the railway and approach the station via Lanherne and Richmond Place. The current intention is to re-open the final short stretch on 23 July 2022. Reported 04 Apr 2022
  • Hello, this route was brought to my attention today. I don't know whether you are aware but the section between the river and the canal across the top of Wheldrake Ings Nature Reserve has no access rights and is not a public right of way. There is a permissive path from the river bridge partway along the river and into the middle of the reserve but it does not link up with the canal. The reason there is restricted access for staff, volunteers and the public is because it is an internationally important site for ground nesting birds and for tens of thousands of birds resting on their migration from Scandinavia to north Africa in winter and back the other way in spring. That route is also cut for hay by tenant farmers and then aftermath grazed with their stock. The gates are locked and there are signs on them marking them as No unauthorised access and explaining the need to avoid disturbance of the wildlife. Can you kindly remove the unauthorised route across our land between the river on the left and the canal on the right and notify me when it has been done. Thanks for your help Brian Lavelle Wheldrake Ings Site Manager Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Reported 21 Nov 2023
  • This is a follow-up to your previous request #1086 "Problem with a Route: Bexda..." Hi Cristie Oddly BexDar 2 =10125, which was the twin of this, isn't displaying properly on my laptop or my phone. Text, photos, etc is there, but the big map and route line is an entirely white space. Maybe there was an upload problem after all. I've just double checked, the same thing is still happening. No route line and no base map. Legend and buttons on top right are there but have no effect. Have refreshed page several times. Bex Dar One and other routes display ok though. Come to think of it neither One nor Two show on the progress map although both have positive reviews. And, just checked, if you click on the route line of BexDar 2 from another page it takes you to 10126=BexDar 3! I've got copies of the two texts and photos so if it's easiest to just delete BexDar Two and start again on a fresh BexDar route I could do that. Daisy Reported 25 Nov 2022
  • This route has access problems in two places that mean it is 'no go'. The M8 crossing and Sighthill are under development, and this part of the route can't be used. Then, near to Bishopbriggs, the footpath linking Littlehill Golf Club to Balornock Road, passing east of Stobhill Hospital, is so overgrown it doesn't feel safe underfoot. This may be a seasonal thing, in any case I decided since Glabis needs a reroute I would avoid trying to use this path. (Two other routes also use this path, Bisste One (Bishopbriggs - Stepps) and Bisshe One (Bishopbriggs - Shettleston), neither has been reviewed yet). I've put up a revised Glabis route which is more direct and definitely walkable! (Although more busy road), and recommend Glabis One is retired. Reported 17 Sep 2021
  • This is a duplicate of Harhay One and can be removed from the network. Thanks, Jane Reported 16 Oct 2022
  • Just created this route but it is displaying DulCat 2 line (and, weirdly, greater elevation) instead. Not sure how that works. Can you replace the GPX file if I send it or just delete this so I can reload? (Would that have to be DulCat 4?) Reported 14 Feb 2023
  • Jock's Road / Tolmouth remains inaccessible, Storm Arwen wiped out much of Glen Doll's forests and the path between Glen Doll ranger base and the end of the forest is still blocked. Access is possible by walking up the South Esk, going left round by Loch Esk and reaching Crow Craigies that way, then down to Braemar Reported 29 Apr 2022
  • Hi Cristie, For some time DawTop1 has not worked - it returns an ERROR 500. The Rail Resilience Project has caused closure of sections to which I referred in an earlier review (long lost I suspect) and which also led Dan to create DawTop 2. Should it still exist my original review is no longer valid and neither is Dan's as the major part of his diversion is now no longer necessary. I had posted a July date when the final short stretch was to be opened but unexpected foundation problems have forced this to be delayed and the latest permission states the closure is valid "until 07 September 2022 or when completed whichever is the earlier" (my italics). (The sensitivities of local Parish Councillors have been offended!) I felt some update was called for and have submitted a DawTop3 to which I have added a review and survey to repeat/update data conveyed in my original review/survey. I leave you to decide what further tidying-up is required but it might be worth renaming DawTop3 to DawTop1 and removing the malfunctioning DawTop1 and Dan's alternative (DawTop 2) while retaining his review, photos and validation and Pilea's review and validation in the new DawTop1 (aka Dawtop3) if they are agreeable? All 3 are exactly the same track which is indubitably the most appropriate from 07 September 2022. There are some other issues. I have submitted it with the original DawTop .gpx although I am a little uncomfortable with it. At times it drifts up to 25m from the true track although this is not usually an issue - just means someone following the screen track zoomed in would be aware of apparently criss-crossing the mainline railway on occasions and paddling below the low-water tide line on others! However, it starts from inside Geronimo's coffee bar, ploughs straight through the station booking office walls and exits into the station car park dead-end on the wrong side of the tracks! I have allowed for this in the review. However, if required I can re-walk the route after 7 September (or when possible) and submit a new .gpx track. In the description and review I have also drawn attention to the irregularity of the ferry timetable and the complications of arriving to learn the next ferry is due at 1000 on the first Friday of next month given that a further walk of up to 3km is the only way out to civilisation! Seemed important. While in contact . . . . A couple of other observations. ChuDaw1 includes a seriously dangerous stretch of blind bends on a very busy road without footpaths, bordered by impregnable Devon banks and a reputation as one of the most dangerous roads in the County! I condemned the Way and note another contributor to ChuTei1, which uses the same stretch, has done likewise. It is lethal and frankly the thought that it remains a possible Slow Way worries me. It is inappropriate for anyone (I tried it and felt exceedingly irresponsible and inconsiderate [and a bl---- fool]). I shudder to think of a family, young children or someone with a dog attempting it. I've always thought the star system should allow for zero stars to be awarded as on a dark night even one star is a vote of confidence! My suggested alternative (ChuDaw2) is a really great, off-road alternative - and is actually slightly shorter - even the version I uploaded which in fairness could be shortened still further by using road stretches for the purity of "directness" BUT at the expense of some outstanding bridle ways and paths even by Devon standards. I expect all 4 Daw ways to be snailed this year. This target is closer than appears from just looking at current validations but ChuDaw is proving a bit more of an issue because of its length and climbs. However, we have a tradition of 19th century naval press-ganging in South Devon , , , , , , . . . I also plan to re-visit each of my descriptions and reviews following the full restoration of the seawall which I shall upload using the new edit feature. Thank you, Cristie, for your earlier correspondence and encouragement and I hope you can see your way to perhaps resolving the DawTop problem. Please pass my thanks to Dan also - I was delighted he walked and clearly enjoyed my TeiDaw2 alternative. With very best wishes Tony (Leigh) PS. What a way to start your Friday morning. If you park this email until Monday I shall not be offended :-) Reported 09 Jun 2022
  • Hi Cristie Hope you had a nice weekend Easilf 3 is a fairly new route in East London, a few months old. Added because Easilf 2 (one of the originals) had a flaw. It has one positive review. It does show on the progress map but only just. It doesn't show as a positive review or a negative review. It doesn't show as to be pioneered. It doesn't show as the zero option for verified or positive or anything else either (but what route does!). I realised after quite a bit of faffing around that it does show under All routes. Oddly Easilf 2 (which it replaces) shows as both a negative review and as to be pioneered. Easilf 3 is probably the only one that's likely to get "positively reviewed" but it is fine on the main site and the area has plenty of other slow ways so it won't appear to be a huge hole in the network. It's just a new one for me. I'm not sure if I'm remembering this right, but is the progress map is being phased out? If that's right then ignore this, if not then please treat it as the lowest priority or none at all. I've stopped worrying about other strange things on there but if this is new to me then perhaps it's new to you too? Thanks Daisy Reported 25 Nov 2023
  • Hi Cristie and co. Here is my feedback. Only on places I’ve looked at before, but if you don’t get feedback on some points I’ll take a look if it would help. Hartley (Sevenoaks) is now renamed Longfield - thank you! If any reviews or routes need to be readded let me know, or maybe they can just be renamed. Adding Beckenham Junction station is a better solution than I suggested. But ElmBec is missing I think. I’ve presumptuously gone ahead and made ElmBec, CatBec, CryBec and BroBec because I’d looked at the area a week or two ago, to create a new CatBro and was prepping to walk a couple. So it was very little effort. Let me know if you want them. Glad I hadn’t got round to testing them yet, good timing. The position of Bec(kenham) is good. Does the fine detail matter? If so perhaps avoid inside the ticket office and go for something just outside the station like ///number.stable.pies or maybe ///books.foods.frames which is a bench in a small park about 100m away. Swanscombe replaced by Greenhithe. Also good news. All 4 route lines are there too. I volunteer for writing NorGre and/or DarGre, as they’ll basically be a rehash of SwaDar (darswa?) which I’ve already written and then walked a route for, combined with NorSwa - recently reviewed that too. And back when I wrote HarNor and particularly HarSwa (swahar?) I looked at the N/S connections so it’d make sense to volunteer for that too. But position of Greenhithe end point could be better maybe ///cares.rice.agenda - just outside station under shelter of the wide eaves. As for considering a town centre alternative, I don’t know if there even is a concentrated town centre in Greenhithe, but the road named High Street isn’t it. It’s the old part of Greenhithe, some beautiful buildings, but most are residential now, although it does have multiple pubs which did look nice. The station seems more logical, with all its bus connections. Stapleford Tawney replaced by S Abbotts. Thank you again! End point near to the bus stop, near 2 landmarks - school and church, roughly halfway between the 2 pubs. What’s not to like? 6 / 6 routes looks good too. The bloke who posted on the forum will probably volunteer but I’ll have a go at some if you need me to. Camarthen area The sinuous estuary problem. Already fixed. St Clears to Kidwelly was equivalent to St Clears to Camarthen to Kidwelly, but it’s not on the website anymore except for the map lines. Pembroke area The even more sinuous estuary problem. Many long branches, only one bridge. If you are able to, can you delete NeyNar, MilPem(broke) and Pem(brokeDock)Nar please, all 3 are superfluous. Would be simpler and concentrate reviewer effort. It does leave Pem(brokeDock) as a Settlement node with only 2 Slow Ways, which spoils the triangle system. I hope it doesn’t matter. And seeing as I’m emailing you already…. I noticed another Capitalisation in URL oddity. Same as /SlowWay/ working but /slowway/ not. But for settlement and route. And is it just me having a problem with the index on the Progress Map? It’s been going on a while so I assumed you’d already know, but this is what’s happening for me. On Android (Chrome) it is already open when you start, and just continues on and on hanging with spinning circle, so you can’t use it, the rest of the map is fine. There are fewer layers available, assume that is deliberate, I’d prefer that the pioneer and negative review options were still there, but fair enough. Not figured out how to close the index yet and it blocks the screen - that doesn’t seem right. On laptop (Windows, Chrome and Edge) it’s much the same, but I can minimise the index, and all the layer options are still there which is good. In practice the index not being available doesn’t make much difference to me as I already know what those I use mean and could deduce others. Parish boundaries though, really?! I really like that Settlement dots now appear when the map first loads. Small change but big improvement. Cheers Daisy Reported 18 Mar 2023
  • This is a follow-up to your previous request #1208 "Problem with a General: Site" Hi Cristie,I'm enjoying the sunshine in Aberfeldy and hope to walk kenabe2 tomorrow. When I zoomed into the kenmore end all the lines there were rather a mess. Would someone be able to tidy them up so they all end at a point. Many thanks Frances Sent from my Galaxy -------- Original message --------From: Cristie Moore <> Date: 09/06/2023 10:31 (GMT+00:00) To: Frances Berry <> Subject: [Slow Ways] Re: Problem with a General: Site Reported 14 Jun 2023
  • 😝😤Hi Cristie Apologies for the mess that is the reviews on NEWTEI2. I've had problems in getting hold of Tony and Julie - they can be hard to tie down! Tods is Tony. Chronologically, the first review ("We walked this . . . . . ") is the genuine Tods review entered for him by Julie. Julie then encountered problems in logging on herself and ended up entering her review with Tony's credentials! This appeared not to have worked and so she sent it again (you'll notice the slight differences). Both should have been attributed to Julie Squire (as in the Julie Squire reviews to CHUDAW2 and DAWTOP3). I compounded the problem by adding a comment to the first, plugging the tide issue, and addressing it to "Tods". Don't despair of us! It seems to me that Tods' original review ("We walked this route on Thursday . . . ") should stand. Julie's first review should be attributed to Julie Squire not Tods and the comment(s) deleted (you will see I also made a hash of that! So both comments!). I suspect this may not be possible probably because of the way the algorithms are written or because it amounts to tampering which could be deemed inappropriate. In this case perhaps both Julie's reviews could be deleted and I will work with Julie to restore her access and upload a new review. Annoyed with myself because I should have recognised the different styles, albeit both entered by Julie, but was of the mind that all 3 had been entered by Tony whom I suspect is a bit of a Jamie Oliver - a very clever, successful and delightful character who chooses, rightly, to delegate the written word to others. I am very anxious to resolve things with the utmost sensitively. Sorry, last thing you want on a Monday morning! Just let me know how you want to resolve it. Incidentally, they are both keen to do another and I'm inviting them to do Kingsteignton to Teignmouth which requires attention because it relies on a path that has never existed! Also requires hopping on a double decker bus to start which was a bit of a bonus getting to Newton Abbot 😊. Tony Reported 04 Sep 2023
  • This is a follow-up to your previous request #751 "Problem with a Route: Carki..."  Hi,  Regarding the route Heylan One, Heysham to Lancaster, it has been reviewed 3 times, twice stating that the route is good enough and 1 flagging "maybe" for reasonsof access. The route currently has no "snail" tick. All 3 walking groups commented on the tricky area, crossing the dual carriageway. The original route uses an underpass which is not a PRoW and at the Heysham (west) end there is a locked gate. The alternative uses existing PRoWs but needs to cross the busy main road. However there are footpaths on both sides and a wide island, with paved section, in the centre of the carriageways so is safe to cross. This modification to the original route solves the problem. The rest of the route is fine.  Your route suggestions state that you do not want minor modifications to an existing route to become a new route which would require 3 more groups to walk and verify it. I have walked both versions and the road crossing option is the best, no need to climb gates or trespass. I suggest therefore that Heylan One could be modified as per the blue highlight in the attached map of the section and give the route its "snail" tick. I am sure this scenario exists elsewhere in the country.  I look forward to your comments.  Best regards   Neil Herbert  (Lancaster Ramblers) Heylan 1 Orig. Rev.jpg Reported 18 Aug 2023
  • I surveyed & uploaded a route (strgla one) at the weekend. It appeared this morning without the pictures. I noticed someone else has experienced this on the forum.. is there a problem? Reported 05 May 2021
  • I have downloaded and printed the survey forms and completed them by hand. How to I send these to you. There are supplementary documents on an error in the route. I was hoping to scan these and send them as a pdf, but cannot find such a facility on the slow ways website. Ken Perrett Reported 30 Apr 2021

Spotted a problem on the website? Let us know by completing this form and we’ll look into it.

(You are reporting a problem with the Review 3)