Talk:Right-of-way (property access)

Right of way and infrastructure

I'm curious why my addition of Category:Rail infrastructure was removed from this article. I always think of the right of way as the land on which the track is laid, which falls nicely into the definition of infrastructure as I know it. Slambo (Speak) 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize. I was cleaning up the Right-of-way disambiguation page and I created this page to fill in what seemed to be a hole. I wasn't sure where the category came from and deleted it when I made some other minor edit -- I never imagined that someone else had already edited this page! Ewlyahoocom 00:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Thanks for the update. Slambo (Speak) 00:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What's a strip of land like this called?

Hello. I'm looking to fill out the Right-of-way disambiguation page. I am looking for an article that covers these long strips of land for use in railroads, highways/interstates, canals, etc. Is there a catch-all phrase for that kind of strip of land? Let me guess... right-of-way? Any others? Thanks! Ewlyahoocom 00:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sprint Nextel

Please explain why there's a Sprint-Nextel link that was replaced Ahockley 17:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about this too. It certainly doesn't seem to belong here. LrdChaos 18:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

From Sprint Nextel Corporation: Southern Pacific Communications Company (SPCC), a unit of the Southern Pacific Railroad began offering their dial-up service shortly after the Execunet II decision late in 1978. The Railroad had extensive rights of way that could be used to lay long-distance communications. ... Some claim it was an acronym for "Southern Pacific Railroad Information NeTwork"...

From Qwest: Founded in 1996 by Philip Anschutz, Qwest began in a very non-conventional way. Anschutz, who owned almost all of the railroad companies in the Western United States... began installing the first all-digital, fiber-optic infrastructure along his railroad lines...

If it weren't for these rights-of-way the spread of low-cost telecom would have been held back. Ewlyahoocom 20:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading that, I've removed the link. While the fiber-optic lines are laid along railroad rights-of-way, that's their only connection to the term in this context. The lines are laid because of an easement. Maybe if there were more to the article than what we have now, there would be room for a reference to them (as part of a section on other uses of an ROW), but as it stands now, there isn't context to make Sprint Nextel appear relevant to "strip of land granted to a railroad company upon which to build a railroad." LrdChaos 20:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll delete Rail trail, too -- same argument applies. Ewlyahoocom 20:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section to the article titled "alternate uses" which lists a few of the other things that go along rights-of-way; I've also restored the wikilink to Sprint Nextel with a short bit of text about why they're relevant to this. LrdChaos 21:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So are we going to add links to every other telecommunications company out there? Because they all use the easements... not just Sprint. As do natural gas companies and other utilities... Ahockley 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that listing this one means we should list them all, because of the "Southern Pacific Communications Company" part of Sprint. LrdChaos 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why this was re-added, but I've removed it again for the above-listed reasons (not notable, relevance isn't adequately explained, etc.) 218.214.199.68 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea -- this page was getting TOO LONG already! Ewlyahoocom 07:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition

I'm a little confused as to what the subject of this article is, but I'm presuming that its primary focus is on rail rights of way (it's described as a Wikiproject trains article), and that the discussion of pedestrian rights of way should be dealt with in Right of way (public throughway). There is another article that deals with highways, Rights of way (traffic). Perhaps there's confusion here because of differences in usage between the UK and Republic of Ireland, and the USA? Unless anyone objects I will delete the Irish section -- I've already copied it to Right of way (public throughway). The ambiguity in the preamble to the article will also need to be corrected. Rwood128 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Rights of way (traffic) has nothing to do with the rights of way for establishing highways, rather it is about the priority traffic direction for classes of traffic. (ie. a traffic light that gives priority turning over straight ahead traffic, reserved bus lanes) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Confusing lede

I'm afraid that the lede is rather confusing in attempting to differentiate 'right-of-way' and 'right of way' - are we sure that there is not variation in styling in different countries anyway? The disambiguation page seems to suggest so. Geopersona (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hyphens

I would like to suggest that the confusing hyphens be removed from this article's title, along with necessary revision to the lede as follows:

*This article focuses on a type of easement granted, reserved, or purchased across private or public land for highways, railways, canals, as well as electrical transmission, oil and gas pipe lines. In the case of an easement, it may revert to its original owners if the facility is abandoned. The term "right of way" is also used to denote the land itself, such as the strips of land along a railroad track on which railroad companies own a right of way easement.

*Another article exists – Right of way – that deals with public access by foot, by bicycle, horseback on paths and trails, or along a waterway, or the foreshore. Rwood128 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• I little research suggests that the phrase is sometimes hyphenated but that there is no consistencies, other than that the hyphenated version seems to more generally used in North America (Webster) and the unhyphenated version is commonly used in Britain (see [1].

• As the unhyphenated version is also used in N. America, for the sake of consistency (see Right of way) I will therefore remove the hyphens from this article, unless objections are raised. Rwood128 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Australia: Legal services Commission South Australia Rwood128 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Both versions are used in Canada. The government appears to use the unhyphenated version, while the Canadian version of the OED gives the hyphenated version: Goverment of Canada; OED Canadian version.
• New Zealand: A Google search suggests that the unhyphenated version is most common here.

Rwood128 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Reverted pagemove, please use WP:RM. 162 etc. (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

HI 162 etc., You have had sufficient time to object to the proposed change. I also indicated on the Right of way page, earlier, that I planned to edit this article.

With regard to the name change discussion, as far as I can see that topic is dormant – though I did make an attempt to revive it. Right of way is a separate (if related) article from this one and my edit did not interfere with that discussion. I merely removed the hyphens for the sake of consistency. As the above indicates I thoroughly researched this matter. At the very least you should have responded to the above – even if you were late – before reverting.

A hyphen is not used in the section on the traffic term. Rwood128 (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

A couple things here:

1. My objection is that "Right of way" and "Right-of-way" as a sort of WP:NATDAB is currently being discussed at Talk:Right of way. That discussion should play out, and a consensus reached, before hyphen-related edits to this or related articles are made.

2. There is no deadline. "You have had sufficient time to object to the proposed change" is not something that is supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline.

3. So far, nobody has participated in the above discussion but you. That's not a consensus. I urge you to be more patient as the community considers and discusses these points. Thank you for your ongoing contributions to the encyclopedia. 162 etc. (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

No objections were raised, so I acted in accordance with Wikipedia:Be bold. Rwood128 (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You were advised 20 May of my intent on the Right of way Talk page, also, 162 etc.. Can you take charge re the change of name for Right of way? There appears to be a consensus for action, though no name has been designated. I haven't yet checked the previous name change discussion in 2014, I have to admit. Rwood128 (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to revert 162 etc.'s edit here. My reasons are indicated above. The removing of "hyphens", was so that the spelling of this article matched other similarly named ones. However, this is a fairly minor matter, so I will happily await the resolution to the discussion re name change, before acting. Rwood128 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

A comment was made on 6 June on Talk:Right of way: "Neither should have hyphens in it, because those only pertain to use as a compound modifier per MOS:HYPHEN (e.g. in 'a right-of-way dispute', but 'a dispute about right of way'; same as 'a common-law principle' vs. 'a principle in common law')". This would seem to resolve this matter, 162 etc.. A note on this should be included in all related articles.

I'm not in favour, or against, hyphenation. What I'm objecting to is the change being made while the discussion at Talk:Right of way is ongoing. When a consensus is reached there, it will also affect this article. Note that one commenter's interpretation of the MOS is not automatically gospel. Let's wait. 162 etc. (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Rwood128 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

162 etc., I will remove the the unnecessary hyphens, in accordance with MOS:HYPHEN, unless anyone has a strong argument for not doing this. Rwood128 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No objection to moving this article to Right of way (property access), per above. 162 etc. (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Property access

Maybe, to make matters clearer, rename the article Right of way (land grant)? Rwood128 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Public trails by land and water

This article is about a restricted right to access for a specific purpose. The section "Public trails by land and water" belongs in Right of way (public throughway). I propose to remove it or have I misunderstood a some aspect of US law that is not obvious to a UK editor? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, so you may well be right! Though, certain public rights of way are established through legislation and others through regular, unimpeded use over a number of years. I saw a parallel here with other kinds of rights of way, such as railroads and utility corridors. Railroads are, however, private property.

I grew up in England but have lived for much of my life in Newfoundland, Canada, the most British/Irish part of North America. The US law with regard to rights of way appears to be rather different from that in the UK – and Europe. And I suspect that this maybe a source of confusion re Wikipedia's articles on this topic (and amateurs, like me, meddling in legal matters). Rwood128 (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The topic is covered well in the thoroughfare article, so I will remove it from this one. The status of railways is a little anomalous: I can't see that they belong here either since they own the land they are on. I am inclined to remove them too when I figure out where best to direct readers - not that any would start from this article, I strongly suspect. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

So railroads differ from electric grids, piplelines, highways, etc.? Hope you have a legal background 𝕁𝕄𝔽. Can you please clarify.

Also do you agree that the use of hyphens for this article's title is grammatically erroneous? Rwood128 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yes and no. A pipeline under or a power line over my farm does not deprive me of beneficial use of my land for farming at least. Indeed (depending on jurisdiction) I can probably charge rent for the privilege and almost certainly can charge for loss of use during construction and reinstatement even if (at least in England and Wales) the infrastructure operator has a statutory right to insist. If a highway or railway line needs to cross my land, eminent domain (compulsory purchase) will be used whereupon it ceases to be my land and the question of rights or easements becomes irrelevant. So "stands to reason" rather being able to quote subsection of any law. So I can't add anything to that effect without a WP:RS.

I am about to ask at talk:Railway line whether they can find a better home for the US usage. I notice that the UK usage, permanent way, redirects there.

As for the hyphens, I'm pushing my luck enough as it is so would you follow up please? MOS:HYPHEN may have the answer. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

For info: discussion elsewhere re name of public footpaths etc article

See Talk:Right of way (public throughway)#New name Rwood128 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to restructure and rename this article (to "Right of way (railroad)")

Further information: Talk:Glossary of rail transport terms § "Right of way" term in US railways usage

As it stands and despite the opening sentence, in reality most of this article is concerned with the usage of the term "right of way" in US railway terminology. Apparently this is very much current usage terminology in the US (per hatnote above), so satisfies WP:GNG. The only part of the article that deals with right of access for infrastructure networks (under or over private land) is the lead section, but that content is a WP:CFORK of Easement#Wayleave.

So my proposal is this:

• move (and thus rename) this article to become Right of way (railroad) (not "railway", since it is most relevant to US usage.
• delete the entire lead as it stands, with the possibility of copying the deleted content to Easement#Wayleave of anything lacking there.
  • the revised article will thus begin from the current section head #Rail right of way. From the discussion at the glossary talk page, there is quite a lot more to be said about the topic.
• A new {{about}} will make clear what goes where.
• The sentence or two in the current lead about permitted access to land with no road frontage is a very minor item that can be found a home in the "Right of way (footpaths, cycleways, bridleways and canoe-ways) article when a suitable name for it has been hammered out.

What have I missed? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)