Public Footpath Connectivity: Measuring Real Access Beyond Rights-of-Way Length

Abstract and research scope

A methodological study of pedestrian connectivity, rights-of-way network gaps, rural access inequality and walkable settlement access. This review examines evidence quality, geographic coverage and reproducibility. It does not claim new measurements or peer-reviewed status.

Keywords: public footpath connectivity UK, public rights of way GIS network, walking access research, CROW footpath network accessibility, rural walking accessibility mapping

The accessibility measurement problem

The length of recorded paths within a council cannot be read as the public accessibility available to residents. Disconnected segments, road crossings, entrance points and barriers influence effective access. Total kilometres per square kilometre is a descriptive density metric, not a walking accessibility score.

The appropriate use of this evidence is preliminary geographic screening followed by current, authoritative source verification, local policy interpretation and professional judgement where required. Assumptions, missing data and reporting geography should accompany any statistics generated from this framework.

Legal access versus network geometry

A definitive public right of way describes a legal route; its mapped GIS polyline may be generalised or locally imprecise. Permissive paths and ordinary street pavements have different evidence and legal characteristics and should remain tagged distinctly.

The appropriate use of this evidence is preliminary geographic screening followed by current, authoritative source verification, local policy interpretation and professional judgement where required. Assumptions, missing data and reporting geography should accompany any statistics generated from this framework.

Creating a connected network

Combine versioned definitive-map routes with public street walking networks where legally appropriate. Split lines at verified junctions, label crossings and impedances, validate graph connectivity and avoid joining geometrically close lines where physical passage is impossible.

The appropriate use of this evidence is preliminary geographic screening followed by current, authoritative source verification, local policy interpretation and professional judgement where required. Assumptions, missing data and reporting geography should accompany any statistics generated from this framework.

Population-weighted accessibility

Use population-weighted entry-point walking times for meaningful comparison rather than council-wide route counts. Distinguish children, people with mobility impairments and households without cars where defensible source statistics permit.

The appropriate use of this evidence is preliminary geographic screening followed by current, authoritative source verification, local policy interpretation and professional judgement where required. Assumptions, missing data and reporting geography should accompany any statistics generated from this framework.

Sensitivity and ethical limitations

Results depend on assumed walking speed, path condition, route opening, slope and safety. A graph that lacks an obstruction record cannot certify a route as passable. Avoid publishing purported legal path widths from GIS geometry alone.

The appropriate use of this evidence is preliminary geographic screening followed by current, authoritative source verification, local policy interpretation and professional judgement where required. Assumptions, missing data and reporting geography should accompany any statistics generated from this framework.

Sources and references

1. GOV.UK: Rights of way and accessing land
2. Natural England open access and public rights guidance
3. Ordnance Survey Open Roads

Maplify Research Desk (2026), Public Footpath Connectivity: Measuring Real Access Beyond Rights-of-Way Length. Published 28 October 2026. Source releases and access dates should be checked when reusing this work.