Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

apidura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 135 posts

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#91

Post by [deleted] »

hutzlibu wrote: post #50
carschno wrote: post #15

Tangentially related, Spain's coasts are public domain and therefore do not require freedom to roam: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_de_Costas_de_Espa%C3%B1a (Unfortunately, English Wikipedia does not have a translation)

This is interesting, because I definitely encountered beaches, that were private, but it has been before 2018, until a transition period changed, so maybe that changed? And otherwise I found spanish land (around Huelva) to be strictly divided by barbed wire fences with no clear way of knowing whether I entered private property or not, by following public (dirt) roads, when hiking. Not so nice for wildlife as well.

[deleted]

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#92

Post by EmilyHATFIELD »

concordDance wrote: post #77
another2another wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... it can easily take 9 hours at freeway speed ... I think most Europeans would have built high speed railways to get around in half the time to be honest.

7.5 hours from Strasbourg to Perpignan via train. 9 hours via car at an average of 100kmh. So the train is approximately freeway speed.

Lille (Northern France) to Marseille (Southern France) - 1000Km

10 hours via car at highway speed - 5 hours with train

For long distances you'll be using the TGV (300km/h) if you need to go to smaller cities the trains will go roughly at highway speed

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#93

Post by DoingIsLearning »

hutzlibu wrote: post #50
carschno wrote: post #15

Tangentially related, Spain's coasts are public domain and therefore do not require freedom to roam: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ley_de_Costas_de_Espa%C3%B1a (Unfortunately, English Wikipedia does not have a translation)

This is interesting, because I definitely encountered beaches, that were private, but it has been before 2018, until a transition period changed, so maybe that changed? And otherwise I found spanish land (around Huelva) to be strictly divided by barbed wire fences with no clear way of knowing whether I entered private property or not, by following public (dirt) roads, when hiking. Not so nice for wildlife as well.

Beach shoreline is public but sometimes there are no public footpaths specially around cliffs or rocky shoreline.

Legally though you could still access those beaches by boat or swimming and you would not be trespassing.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#94

Post by ghaff »

_xnmw wrote: post #12

Last summer we hiked the Bruce Trail in Ontario, Canada, and discovered for myself that the local laws are NOT so free and permitting. You can't just set up camp anywhere you want, only on predefined campsites and trails. Without that freedom camping is -much- less fun.

On public lands, it varies a lot in the US depending on popularity. In popular wilderness areas and national parks, it's pretty common to need a backcountry permit to camp at a specific location--and in some cases these are very hard to come by. In other cases, especially BLM land but often national forests as well, you can camp more or less where you want to.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#95

Post by hutzlibu »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #93
hutzlibu wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is interesting, because I definitely encountered beaches, that were private, but it has been before 2018, until a transition period changed, so maybe that changed? And otherwise I found spanish land (around Huelva) to be strictly divided by barbed wire fences with no clear way of knowing whether I entered private property or not, by following public (dirt) roads, when hiking. Not so nice for wildlife as well.

Beach shoreline is public but sometimes there are no public footpaths specially around cliffs or rocky shoreline. Legally though you could still access those beaches by boat or swimming and you would not be trespassing.

Well, I was referring to fences on the beach. But like I said, it has been before 2018 at which time apparently a transition period ended, so maybe (and hopefully) they are not there anymore?

I really like the concept of open beaches.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#96

Post by ttymck »

ghaff wrote: post #87
ttymck wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you American? I am, and this line of thinking screams "uniquely American" to me, but I'm curious if "liabilities everywhere" is similarly a concern across the pond. My understanding has been that every other country has much more "common sense" than we do in these matters.

People who claim that someone who breaks their ankle on an unmaintained footpath through a field or in the woods in the US will routinely track down the landowner and sue them really need to provide some documentation that's the case.

That's fair. I think it's a (possibly logical) extrapolation from the undeniably litigious nature of Americans. See recent: https://6abc.com/water-bead-warnings-are-beads-safe-dangers-...

> At least one parent has sued the maker and distributor of one of the products. The lawsuit says some children are ingesting them, and the beads are blocking airways and organs.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#97

Post by ptaffs »

ghaff wrote: post #87
ttymck wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you American? I am, and this line of thinking screams "uniquely American" to me, but I'm curious if "liabilities everywhere" is similarly a concern across the pond. My understanding has been that every other country has much more "common sense" than we do in these matters.

People who claim that someone who breaks their ankle on an unmaintained footpath through a field or in the woods in the US will routinely track down the landowner and sue them really need to provide some documentation that's the case.

Health Insurance companies will follow-up with determining if the property/land owner is responsible for the accident and try to sue. Months after ER treatment, I've had to respond that my child's cycling accident on a camp site was not because of the camp site owner's site maintenance. So it's not necessarily the victim who sues, but the victims' insurer.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#98

Post by ghaff »

ptaffs wrote: post #97
ghaff wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who claim that someone who breaks their ankle on an unmaintained footpath through a field or in the woods in the US will routinely track down the landowner and sue them really need to provide some documentation that's the case.

Health Insurance companies will follow-up with determining if the property/land owner is responsible for the accident and try to sue. Months after ER treatment, I've had to respond that my child's cycling accident on a camp site was not because of the camp site owner's site maintenance. So it's not necessarily the victim who sues, but the victims' insurer.

I'm honestly skeptical that's a common thing however. I've certainly never encountered such a thing and, while I've seen a few cases such as yours mentioned online, it's not something I've ever heard from anyone I know.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#99

Post by DonaldFisk »

ttymck wrote: post #85
DonaldFisk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the trespassers just ignore the sign, and walk on/over the privately owned land without the landowner ever becoming aware of it? How could the landowner sue the unknown trespassers when there wasn't even any evidence of their trespassing?

What about a security camera?

What about a security camera? What can the landowner do if they've already left the private land without committing any crimes?

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#100

Post by Per_Bothner »

walrus01 wrote: post #30
rzwitserloot wrote: post #13

In the US it gets a little crazy: Land is separated out into square plots in quite a few places, especially the later-colonized west, think 'chessboard'. Companies buy all the white squares, leaving the black squares as public land. Which is now entirely inaccessible from anywhere except their private land. Lots of shady duderanch companies do this. There's an interesting legal dispute: Is crossing diagonally from on…

The US western state concept of township, range and section for land survey and land title ownership is interesting. Dry land wheat farmers in some parts of WA own entire "sections". You can see them from space east of Wenatchee. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_(United_States_land_su...

A section isn't large for a farming operation. It's only a square mile or 640 acres. Drive through the Central Valley of California and you'll pass through many much larger parcels. My husband and I own a section not far from Yosemite (as the crow flies). It's pretty rugged and remote - basically wilderness with a house and some cattle.
Post reply on HN