Talk:Richmond Park/Archive 1

Archive 1

Balance / NPOV on cycling?

I would welcome some discussion on the Access section, and specifically on cycling. While I agree that some cyclists are a nuisance in the park and do cause damage, I think that the recent additions from 213.48.46.141 on June 12 and July 21 are mildly inappropriate for WP.

I attempted to write a balanced piece on the access discussion, but I think that the reinsertion of the "limitations on cycling" have unbalanced it again. While it is clear that we should record the controversy as a feature of the park, lets not use WP as a soap box for ranting, nor yet for telling people what they should or should not do. I am not sure that our readership includes many potential off path mountain bikers anyway.

I think the insertion should be removed because the Access paragraphs already made it clear where cyclists were supposed to ride. But before I remove it I would welcome other opinions.

Thruston 10:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(PS Why do people get angry about cycling so often?)

People get angry because the five percent of cyclists who won't use the roads or the Tamsin Trail as their cycling routes are a major menace in the park. It's impossible to get away from bicycles wherever you walk in Richmond Park, and the police do nothing about the problem. In fact in the last twenty years of using the park, I've only ever seen any police on foot in the park on one occasion. Generally they drive round, not bothering to get out of their vehicles, so they don't see the problem (illegal cycling off road), nor do they see the extent of it. If I spend two hours in Richmond Park I expect to find at least half a dozen cyclists using the mud paths (illegally) - and far more at weekends. They shouldn't be on the mud paths at all, but they get away with it. If the police aren't going to deal with the problem (-and they don't bother) then no one else can do anything about the problem, so it just continues and gets worse and worse. If you point out to them they shouldn't be cycling where they are cycling, they take little notice of you, they laugh at you, or they are rude back. The experience of walking in Richmond Park is completely spoilt nowadays by so many cyclists cycling where they shouldn't be cycling, and doing so with total impunity. A park warden should be appointed specifically to deal with this problem, with power to fine offenders, and people found to be cycling where they shouldn't be cycling should be fined £70 a time on the spot. 86.144.244.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC).

Re: Balance / NPOV on cycling?

I agree. The 'Access' section reads more like a polemic than an objective piece on one aspect of the park.

--Davidf2281 14:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge King Henry VIII's Mound?

It seems to me that this is a stubby article about a feature wholly contained within the park - any point in it being a separate article? Kbthompson 13:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick Grindle

Who he?Jatrius 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mile marker

A new wooden direction post was installed in Sept 2008 near the large car park that sits halfway between Robin Hood Gate and Kingston Gate (on the opposite side of the road from that car park). The direction post correctly points towards Kingston Gate on one of its four faces. However, the direction of Robin Hood Gate is wrongly identified on one of its other four faces. The arrow purporting to direct people to Robin Hood Gate in fact directs walkers towards Sheen Gate rather than towards Robin Hood Gate. A rather baffling error. Has anyone else noticed this, and will it be corrected soon?

86.144.244.77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC).

Strange pillar

Can anyone tell me what this is? It stands in open ground at grid reference TQ192723. It is about 1.2 metres high and made of stone rather than concrete. On two opposite faces are holes covered by metal grids. When I look in one side I cannot see daylight on the other side, ie. two separate holes or filled with rubbish.

Don't anybody say it is a trig pillar. There is one of those about 700 metres northwest of this pillar and it looks like this. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Maybe a vent for some underground system? Picking up a few hints in Google Books when I search for "Richmond Park" and underground+shaft. Stuff such as "it is pumped by an engine near the Temperate-house to tanks in Richmond Park". So there was probably some Victorian pumping system in the park at some point. Maybe this is a remnant of that? And of course, you never know what you might find in this park! Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could it be an air-shaft to the cellars of Petersham Lodge, which was in roughly this area? – iridescent 16:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating article, Carcharoth. Persistence certainly paid off for them! Alas, it's not this Richmond park. That one's in the town of Richmond in Hawkesbury, Australia. 92.30.67.173 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected view

Can we have a picture of Henry VIII's Mound and the protected view towards St. Pauls ? Wizzy…☎ 08:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone took a picture last month! See picture here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)