Talk:United Kingdom national parks

VFD Discusssion Scotland National Scenic Areas

Scotland National Scenic Areas I originally started this page as there was an article for United Kingdom Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (the equivalent designation in England and Wales), but not one for NSAs. After reading, and taking part in, some of the discussions on other vfds above, I think this information should be moved into Scotland and/or the appropriate regions, and am happy to do the work. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

• Keep. I understand Tarr3n's logic, but I believe the original reason for establishing such pages was to avoid long, straggling lists on the main articles. This has not changed. At the same time, they make it easy for people to locate national parks in a country they are visiting without having to check every regional article. However, pages such as these should serve only as pointers to the main articles. They should not be developed into fully fledged articles in themselves... (WT-en) WindHorse 05:58, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

• Merge into UK national parks. One article can cover everything here. (WT-en) Pashley 08:00, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

(WT-en) Pashley's idea of merging seems a good one, with a redirect on this article to United Kingdom National Parks, which should be able to happily incorporate the lesser designations. This discussion has been up for more than 14 days and I'm happy to do the work unless anyone objects to the idea? (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

• Merge as per Tarr3n,s suggestion. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I have carried out this merge, and the relevant redirects. (WT-en) Tarr3n 07:37, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Merged

United Kingdom Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty As with Scotland National Scenic Areas, I don't think this needs its own article. The information on the Welsh AONBs is already duplicated in Wales, and I would suggest that the English AONBs be listed in England and/or the relevant regional articles. (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

• Keep. I understand Tarr3n's logic, but I believe the original reason for establishing such pages was to avoid long, straggling lists on the main articles. This has not changed. At the same time, they make it easy for people to locate national parks in a country they are visiting without having to check every regional article. However, pages such as these should serve only as pointers to the main articles. They should not be developed into fully fledged articles in themselves... (WT-en) WindHorse 05:58, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

• Merge into UK national parks. One article can cover everything here. (WT-en) Pashley 08:01, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

(WT-en) Pashley's idea of merging seems a good one, with a redirect on this article to United Kingdom National Parks, which should be able to happily incorporate the lesser designations. This discussion has been up for more than 14 days and I'm happy to do the work unless anyone objects to the idea? (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

• Merge as per Tarr3n,s suggestion. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I have carried out this merge, and the relevant redirects. (WT-en) Tarr3n 07:36, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Merged

VFD Discusssion United Kingdom National Parks

Same argument as United Kingdom Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Scotland National Scenic Areas, I just don't see a need for this to be a Travel Topic in its own right. I suggest the information should be listed in England, Wales or Scotland as appropriate. (Wales already has it.). (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:28, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

• Keep. I understand Tarr3n's logic, but I believe the original reason for establishing such pages was to avoid long, straggling lists on the main articles. This has not changed. At the same time, they make it easy for people to locate national parks in a country they are visiting without having to check every regional article. However, pages such as these should serve only as pointers to the main articles. They should not be developed into fully fledged articles in themselves... (WT-en) WindHorse 05:58, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I have carried out this merge, and the relevant redirects. (WT-en) Tarr3n 07:36, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

• Keep and merge the two articles above into it. (WT-en) Pashley 08:04, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

(WT-en) Pashley's idea of merging seems a good one, with a redirect on the other 2 articles into this one, which should be able to happily incorporate the lesser designations. This discussion has been up for more than 14 days and I'm happy to do the work unless anyone objects to the idea? (WT-en) Tarr3n 08:29, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

• Merge as per Tarr3n,s suggestion. (WT-en) WindHorse 23:18, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I have carried out this merge, and the relevant redirects. (WT-en) Tarr3n 07:36, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

Outcome: Merged

Table format

Not sure I like the new format for an article page. Have to do a lot of scrolling to see what parks there are in the UK. I can see that all the images does help the reading understand what to expect in a particular park but not sure removing the previous format is the way to go. A stalled idea we had a while ago was a Gallery page. Suggest this page is reverted to old format and a gallery sub page is create. See Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle/Gallery as example. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to keep, the table, but halve the size of the images. The images are 375px - 150px would be better, and 75px would still be visible. Alternatively the images used could be the page banners for the linked articles - 7:1 images would work well in a table. AlasdairW (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the table at all and don't think there's a really good reason to have photos of every park. Indian National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries arguably has too many photos, too, but I think it's a decent example for this article. Can you imagine how long that article would be if every single park had an image? Instead, each park listing should have a useful description, because on this site, we like to avoid articles that are nothing but long lists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Fees and permits

The article states: "National Parks in the UK have no admission charges, and there may only be a road sign to indicate that you are entering a park."

This is not enough for somebody e.g. from the Nordic countries, with a tradition of right to access, only somewhat restricted in national parks. My understanding is that although you are allowed to enter the park freely, access to any part of it can be restricted and subject to fees, depending on goodwill of landowners.

I believe the system in the UK is quite unique. It differs significantly from that in Finland, where all national parks are on soil owned by the state and administered by the park (or Metsähallitus, which is responsible for all the parks), which I believe is more common worldwide.

I suppose this article would be a good place to lay out where you can walk, ride a bike or pitch your tent, where you may be denied entry, and where you should not go without explicit permission. The individual parks articles could point here for that general information.

--LPfi (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah! I missed "Land within a National Park remains largely in private ownership, and so land access is usually subject to the same restrictions as elsewhere in the country."

Still, I don't find anything about the right to roam in the UK article, and public pathways and bridleways are not defined in the England article where they are mentioned. I still think we should have at least a few paragraphs on this, or give pointers to the relevant sections and make sure they have the needed information.

--LPfi (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your second post; there should be more information.

We do have large areas of right to roam in many national parks (marked by a stick man symbol and particular shading on Ordnance Survey maps), but these also exist elsewhere in e.g. AONBs, and of course they do not cover the whole territory of a park. I'm pretty ignorant of Scottish law, but I believe they have more liberal rights of land access than the rest of the UK. Will await the comment of someone who knows more.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Access is briefly covered in Walking in the United Kingdom and Cycling in England and Wales, and being in a National Park makes little difference. A cynic might say that the National Parks are just lines on the map, and it is possible to enter a park without even passing a sign. Each National Park has an authority which manages it by providing some visitor facilities and doing some of the town planing functions which a local council normally does. The land is generally farmed (or forestry), with sheep farming being common.

In Scotland there is access almost everywhere in accordance with the Outdoor Access Code, and ironically the Loch Lomond National Park is fist place to bring in restrictions on wild camping. In the rest of the UK you can walk on a large number of public rights of way (historic footpaths) and public bridleways. In the parks there are some additional permissive parks, and a few areas where you can roam. Some of the National Park land is owned by charities (e.g. National Trust and the John Muir Trust) and they generally make it easy to access the land. There are no fees to enter any National Park and I don't think anywhere charges to access land unless there are specific attractions, but there are car parking charges. AlasdairW (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion

I don't have enough knowledge of national parks in the UK to do this, but I was wondering if whether adding another column which has a little bit of info about the park (as an example, for Peak Hill NP, "The UK's first national park", except that's way too short). Maybe the area of the park might also be beneficial, if the park is a bit remote. But it's just a suggestion – I don't know enough about the UK's national park, and there's no obligation to do so. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Veil of Snow - Sgwd yr Eira.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The user-created licence used has been deemed invalid, and thus there is no valid licence. However, the terms should allow using it here. I suppose we want to upload it locally. The licence template should also be imported or quoted, as it will be deleted on Commons. –LPfi (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I have changed the photo to a replacement. We could have uploaded the photo locally, but as the original uploader supports deletion and there are ready alternatives, I don't think that is necessary. AlasdairW (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This article, Wikivoyage:Image policy and mobile formatting

This article isn't very mobile-friendly (as pictured on the right) and I'm having to zoom in really deep to be able to read the text due to the large image sizes.

In addition, there are more images in this article than that permitted per Wikivoyage:Image policy. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)