GUIDANCE ON USING SIGNAGE TO MANAGE SHARED USE OUTDOOR ACCESS

Signage has a key role to play in promoting opportunities for outdoor access. Good signage can be a valuable tool in encouraging and helping people to behave in a responsible manner. Inappropriate, ineffective, negative signage can have completely the opposite effect. Several excellent publications already exist offering guidance on what is appropriate in different situations, most notably

Signage Guidance for Outdoor Access: A Guide to Good Practicewww.outdooraccess-scotland.com/sites/default/files/docs/signage_guidance_for_outdoor_access.pdf

Signs Guidance for farmers and other land managers. Using advisory signs to inform the public about your day to day land management operations. www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A302820.pdf

Despite this, signs are still being erected all over Scotland which are not in the spirit of Scotland’s inclusive access legislation. These notes have been produced to complement existing guidance, and to provide more specific guidance on and examples of the role and effects of signage in determining types (or mode) of use, and positively influencing the behaviour of path users.

Key principles Under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, land covered by access rights, including

paths, is available to all responsible non-motorised users, including horse riders as well as walkers and cyclists.

Where access rights apply, signs must not deter or discourage legitimate responsible access as defined by the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

Signs should be used to help people make their own judgements on whether they can take access responsibly rather than to prevent or deter responsible access.

Excessive signage dilutes the message so signs work best when limited o the most important messages and locations.

Providing paths and directing people where you want them to go usually works much better than “no go” type signs, which may conflict with legal access rights and many people will ignore.

Excluding horse access by using a sign with a horse symbol with a red circle and diagonal line through it, or discouraging cyclists by using the word footpath, is not consistent with the ethos of the Act or the Code.

In most situations, paths should not be signed specifically for one type of user, but there are many paths around Scotland where the landowner, access manager or local community may be concerned about horses chewing up the surface, or dunging, particularly on soft, narrow or unsurfaced paths which are well used by walkers. This doesn’t mean that access rights do not apply, but it may justify action to avoid conflict.

Wording on path signsInappropriate or misleading wording, particularly wording which infers a path or track is suitable only for one type of use, conflicts with Scotland’s outdoor access legislation.

Use the word path, trail, way or route rather than footpath, cycle path, or walkway.

This well-worded sign makes it clear that non-vehicular access takers are welcome but there is no right of access for unauthorised vehicles.

Excluding vehicles is fine, but implying that access is restricted to pedestrian is not in the spirit of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act.

Other than tracks specifically excluded from access rights under the Land Reform Act, estate roads will usually be capable of sustainably supporting responsible multi-use. In most situations, signs such as this contravene the Act and should be taken down.

Using symbols on path signageUse of symbols to specify particular modes of use is contrary to the spirit of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code as it may infer that a path may not be used by other user groups. Page 43 of “Signage Guidance for

Outdoor Access: A Guide to Good Practice” explains in more detail the legalities relating to use of symbols.

As a rule of thumb, avoid using symbols on signs which suggest restriction to only certain types of legitimate use.

On routes which were established prior to the Land Reform Act which include “Walk”, “Walkway” “Cycle Way” or other similar words in their name which might be mistakenly interpreted as suggesting restricted mode of use, symbols can help confirm that the path is open to all legitimate users.

Inclusion of symbols on this sign confirms that even though the path is called “railway walk”, it is equally suitable for horse-riders and cyclists – but vehicles are not allowed.

Symbols are often advocated as being far clearer than words, which is why they have been included on this sign to confirm that horse riders as well as cyclists enjoy access rights on the land beyond. However, best practice signage guidance for outdoor access suggests that symbols are unnecessary, and wrongly suggest that only those types of use depicted are legitimate.

As with other similar signs, strictly speaking this sign is non-compliant

with access rights and good signage practice as it could be misinterpreted as failing to include wheelchair or tramper users, but such signs can be very helpful in reminding walkers and cyclists that horses enjoy equal access rights.

Fingerposts and other directional signs which include walking, cycling and horse-riding symbols may be well intentioned in confirming suitability for multi-use, but can cause confusion when a sign at the next junction shows symbols suggesting restriction to walkers and cyclists along a track equally suitable for responsible horse riders.

The Signage Guidance for Outdoor Access guide to good practice recommends that alternatives to symbols should be used wherever possible where braided routes are being promoted to avoid any suggestion of unjustified restriction on use.

Blue circular signs such as the one pictured here bearing symbols of a bike and a walker are mandatory on roads. They are increasingly common, and wrongly used, on off-road paths where horse riders actually enjoy equal rights of access. Mis-use of signs such as this in inappropriate settings simply causes confusion and encourages people to ignore all signs. It can also provoke antagonism between users in suggesting the path is only for walkers and cyclists.

Using signs to encourage responsible behaviour

The parent and child symbol on this sign reinforces the message urging cyclists to reduce their speed, but can easily mislead people into thinking horse riders have no legal right along the canal towpath. Inclusion of a horse symbol would remind horse riders that restricting pace is essential to sharing paths, and – equally importantly - alert walkers and cyclists to the fact that they may meet horse riders legitimately using the path.

The use of walking and cycling symbols can easily be misinterpreted as suggesting that horses are not allowed over this bridge (there is ample space for horses to pass around the railings). Removal of the top sign would be more in keeping with good practice, although the lower sign could be argued as falling into the same trap, and in suggesting a hierarchy of use, countermands the principles of responsible access.

Key points re. using signs to influence behaviour

1. Signage needs to be simple, clear, concise and specific. Stick to one message rather than diluting or risking confusing people by trying to put across too much information.

2. Explain why you are asking for certain behaviour e.g. associated health risks or dog fouling.

3. Keep words to a minimum – a single picture, symbol or cartoon is often more effective.4. Humour usually helps, but with serious problems such as sheep worrying or health risks,

hard-hitting facts are more effective.

This sign, developed and used by Glasgow City council, includes useful reminders of responsible behaviour on shared use paths, but the symbols wrongly suggest that only walkers and cyclists have a right to use the path.

This sign states “Horses not to exceed a canter”, which effectively condones horse riders going much faster than most would consider responsible on a bound surfaced multi-use heavily used by cyclists, walkers, people pushing buggies and wheelchair users.

Although this sign politely says “no horses”, no reason is offered as to why horses should not use a grass track which in dry weather is able to sustainably support multi-use. Consequently, the sign is often ignored and fails to achieve its purpose. (The sign below is specifically for fishermen and is unrelated to path use.)

Providing information about what route users can expect and susceptibility to damage allows them to make their own decisions as to whether their intended use is responsible, but this sign does not make clear that cyclists, or other users, should therefore consider not using the path during or after wet weather. The cycle logo also suggests the message only applies to cyclists, or indeed that only cyclists enjoy access rights along this path.

Violet Woods Millennium Nature Trail – a good example of signage to help manage access

The Millennium Nature Trail is a waymarked path through the woodland around Wiltonburn Park. The path is used daily, and is particularly popular with local dog walkers, as well as visitors to Hawick. Along the north side of the park, the path runs through an avenue of beech trees. Most of the path is unsurfaced, which is fine for pedestrian use year-round, but during wet weather, cycle and equestrian use can cause problems.

Rather than try and restrict access by gates or signs, Scottish Borders Council took the positive decision to erect suitably worded signs either end of the path which remind horse riders, cyclists and dog walkers of their responsibilities under the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

Keys to success The Millennium Nature Trail signs encourage everyone to respect the woodland for

mutual enjoyment, rather than pointing a finger at one particular type of user. Signs have been kept simple rather than risk confusing people or diluting the most

important messages with too much information. Focusing on specific messages is far more effective than simply reminding or

advising people to “Know the Code” – those who already know the Code but aren’t adhering to it are likely to ignore such signs, and those that don’t would then need to look up the Code on a smartphone, or on return home, neither of which is likely to achieve the required responsible behaviour.

Signage on single-track, downhill or other bespoke mountain bike routesLegally, rights of responsible access apply to most land, including paths or routes created for mountain bikes.

Signs such as this which suggest no entry to a one-way cycle trail conflict with the Land Reform Act, and with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

This sign is better in alerting walkers, cyclists and horse riders to the dangers of approaching cyclists, but does not offer an alternative. Anyone who chose to would be within their legal rights to ignore this sign.

Signs such as this are more positive and more effective in requesting that walkers and horse riders use an alternative clearly waymarked route. However, the yellow warning symbol does not make it clear why use of the bike route might present problems.

Most of us can sympathise with why this sign has been erected, but it isn’t in keeping with the Land Reform Act, and although the “No horses” word at the top is very clear, the wording below is too long and too small for most people to bother reading – especially if mounted on a horse.

Signs suggesting hierarchy of use

In other countries, signs are often used to remind walkers, cyclists and horse riders who has precedent, and who should give way to another type of user.

The concensus is that such signs are not relevant in Scotland where all users share equal responsibility for respecting others. Evidence suggests that there might be benefits all round to reminding walkers (particularly those with dogs), cyclists and horse riders of the need to share paths and respect others, but it’s important to remember that signage is not the only means of communicating information, or educating people about outdoor access rights and responsibilities.

VWG 16.3.16