Every death on the mountains is a tragedy and the all of outdoor community's hearts go out to the friends and family of anyone losing their lives in such a way but the decision to remove "false paths" is almost certain to prove controversial. The first problem comes in the definition of a "false path" ..... false to who? Does a climbers' traverse or a descent route constitute a false route? Does a path that leads only to a viewpoint constitute a false path? How about a path worn by sheep, should farmers have a duty to educate their sheep not to make tracks that walkers may subsequently follow? What about if someone chooses to step off the "approved" path? Does the National Park's duty of care mean that actually they shouldn't allow you to step outside the boundaries of approved routes?

Quite apart from the problem of defining what a "false path" is there's also a question of whether they should be removed at all. The mountains have the potential to be dangerous and that's just fact; short of putting handrails on either side of every path with a rest station every few hundred metres and only allowing access in perfect weather no amount of human intervention is going to change that fact. For centuries people have been climbing Snowdon and people have been falling off it - to an extent "danger" has always been one of the main attractions that draws people to the mountains. As soon as people, and sheep, started roaming the mountains paths were being made, with many of these paths becoming the "trade routes" over time but others fading into disuse. Over time a route's popularity can wax and wane as an outcrop becomes the centre of attention for climbers or a winter stream requires an alternative path to cross safely. For over a hundred years, however, people have been able to navigate these paths, both "false" and true, through the use of map and compass.

Hafod Eryri - Can you really understand the concept of risk when there's a cafe at the top?

The Ordnance Survey do a magnificent job in providing us with the finest maps in the World and together with a compass and the knowledge of how to use them it matters not one bit whether a path is "false" or true. With the tools to navigate our mountains at hand should we be sanitising them and attempting to remove all risk? Risk is an inherent part of being in the mountains and any artificial attempts to remove the risk are as likely to introduce new problems as cure perceived existing issues over "duty of care". In the absence of risk humans become complacent and the consequences of even a minor deviation from the risk-free environment elevates a minute risk to a very real one. As we become increasingly risk averse we also become decreasingly risk tolerant. We also become more remote from the outside world and from nature and in doing so we become more vulnerable. On a mountain that has a cafe on its summit and a railway to carry you to the door it's not surprising people are fooled into thinking there is no risk and perhaps it's this sanitisation we should be looking at rather than other "false paths" and education as the answer rather than trying to micromanage people's choice. Perhaps the best way the National Park Authority can fulfil its duty of care lies in educating people that mountains are inherently dangerous despite the appearances and that the only safe way to navigate them is through learning the skills of map and compass along with an understanding of the mountain environment.