Leave access to chance and people carve desire lines through crops, lambing fields and bogs—everyone loses. The answer isn’t finger-wagging or a thicket of signs; it’s picking the right route form and putting it where people actually want to go. Done well, paths channel traffic onto robust ground, protect fences and margins, and cut dog-livestock conflict. What follows weighs the farmer-side pros and cons of the main styles—circular, out-and-back, link spurs, through routes, multi-use tracks and short accessible loops—so we stop building paths to nowhere and start managing behaviour.
If access is well-integrated it can benefit both land managers and users. Farmers avoid trampling where it hurts, while walkers/riders get certainty and a better experience. The “style” of path isn’t just the physical surfacing, but the route form and how people experience it. The main ones worth encouraging in the countryside are:
1. Circular routes
- Most popular with casual walkers and families.
- Reduce doubling back (seen as boring) and spread pressure.
- Can be designed to start/finish at villages, farms, or parking, so facilities get used.
- Good for interpreting features (heritage, viewpoints, farm diversification).
2. Out-and-back (linear) routes
- Suits desire lines to a feature (waterfall, trig point, coast).
- Cheap to implement, but traffic is concentrated both ways.
- Useful where terrain limits circular options.
3. Linking routes (spurs and connectors)
- Small additions to existing rights of way or core paths.
- Can direct people away from sensitive areas (stock, crops) and towards robust ground.
- Enable flexibility and multiple circuits without much new infrastructure.
4. Long-distance / through routes
- Attract visitors looking for multi-day or point-to-point travel.
- Can connect settlements, boosting local spending.
- Often piggy-back on existing rights of way but benefit from clear branding.
5. Multi-use tracks (shared surfaces)
- For walkers, cyclists, horses if designed wide/robust enough.
- Better fit with farm access tracks than foot-only paths in some contexts.
6. Short accessible loops / “easy access” trails
- Close to farms, car parks, or community hubs.
- Short surfaced loops that give inclusive access without sending everyone deep into working farmland.
| Path Style | Pros for Farmers | Cons / Risks |
|---|---|---|
| Circular routes | Channels people on a predictable loop; can avoid sensitive areas; higher user satisfaction so less straying | Requires more fencing/gates; more waymarking and upkeep; harder to negotiate land for a full loop |
| Out-and-back (linear) | Cheap to implement; easy to manage with one main line of furniture | Concentrates wear both ways; can feel congested; if destination is sensitive (e.g. viewpoint in grazing area) may create hotspots |
| Linking routes (spurs/connectors) | Diverts traffic off problem spots; allows flexibility without much new infrastructure; can tie in with farm tracks | Can create more entry points to manage; may encourage informal loops if signage isn’t clear |
| Long-distance / through routes | Attracts external visitors = potential for diversification (B&B, farm shop); well-maintained by partners (e.g. councils, charities) | Greater volume of traffic; dogs from outside area; may demand higher standards of access furniture |
| Multi-use tracks (shared) | Compatible with farm machinery routes; fewer separate paths to maintain; broader user base may support local economy | More surfacing cost; conflicts between walkers, cyclists, horses; gates need to be wider/stronger |
| Short accessible loops | Keeps the majority near access points; good PR/community benefit; limits intrusion into working areas | Need surfacing and investment; perceived as “tokenistic” if not linked to wider network |