This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Bodmin and Wenford Railway. |
The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Bodmin RailTrail. |
I have placed an NPOV (neutrality is disputed) as the article stated "In the future, the railway will extend alongside this footpath towards Wadebridge." The extension is only a plan. A plan which is unlikely to be approved. There is considerable opposition to this extension as there will not be enough room for the railway track and a decent sized cycle path. It is already very congested in the summer months with out it being made any narrower. The train enthusiasts already have enough track to use. They do not need anymore.
The NPOV notice can only be removed if the article acknowledges that the extension really is only just a plan and that there is opposition to the extension. User:benjaminevans82 31st July 20:05
I can also add that cycle route 45 alongside the Severn Valley Railway coexists quite happily. Cyclists and horse riders may be using a pathway that has not been authorised as a bridalway. Footpaths and bridalways are not the same thing. 7severn7 ( talk) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The comments about bridalways is perfectly valid. I recently stopped horse-riding along a route declared as a footpath only. 7severn7 ( talk) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
User:SilkTork has renamed Bodmin and Wenford Railway to Bodmin & Wenford Railway claiming this to be the correct name. As I read it they are both the correct name, however WP:& states that the word "and" is preferable and so I feel this move should be revertd Geof Sheppard ( talk) 12:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Bodmin and Wenford Railway. |
The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Bodmin RailTrail. |
I have placed an NPOV (neutrality is disputed) as the article stated "In the future, the railway will extend alongside this footpath towards Wadebridge." The extension is only a plan. A plan which is unlikely to be approved. There is considerable opposition to this extension as there will not be enough room for the railway track and a decent sized cycle path. It is already very congested in the summer months with out it being made any narrower. The train enthusiasts already have enough track to use. They do not need anymore.
The NPOV notice can only be removed if the article acknowledges that the extension really is only just a plan and that there is opposition to the extension. User:benjaminevans82 31st July 20:05
I can also add that cycle route 45 alongside the Severn Valley Railway coexists quite happily. Cyclists and horse riders may be using a pathway that has not been authorised as a bridalway. Footpaths and bridalways are not the same thing. 7severn7 ( talk) 13:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The comments about bridalways is perfectly valid. I recently stopped horse-riding along a route declared as a footpath only. 7severn7 ( talk) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
User:SilkTork has renamed Bodmin and Wenford Railway to Bodmin & Wenford Railway claiming this to be the correct name. As I read it they are both the correct name, however WP:& states that the word "and" is preferable and so I feel this move should be revertd Geof Sheppard ( talk) 12:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)