THE popular notion that the public desire the right to roam the countryside, without constraint, could be a misconception.

The fact that people want to walk the land does not necessarily mean they wish to amble about hither and thither in decreasing or expanding circuits within a restricted area, but only that they wish to continue in a more or less direct line across land previously closed to them.

If users could cross the new access land in several different directions, along specifically designated lines, this would surely satisfy the majority of users.

It follows that what is required is not a regime of open access but an expanded network of rights of way footpaths - a rationalisation of the existing paths.

The argument against open access, right to roam, is that landowners would, in many cases, have the legitimate reason, or excuse, to restrict access, citing numerous circumstances in which they would deem it necessary, because of danger or inconvenience, to allow the public to roam at will.

The restrictive circumstances might well be of a temporary nature, but how would it be possible for someone to leave home with the foreknowledge of any restrictive access without an exhaustive enquiry beforehand?

It would be similar to attempting a long-distance bus journey only to find that a particular section of the journey is no longer served by the bus at that time.

The answer to the dilemma is to put in place an expanded Right of Way network, which will be always available across open access areas.

If such an expansion was instituted the landowner would surely be pleased that he has control over access and the user would still be able to enjoy the lay of the land and the view on the way.

GRAHAM WALKER, Ryelands Road, Leominster.