Live data from Hacker News

A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

nytimes.com

11–20 of 189 posts

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#15
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BLM Land has been a mainstay of the US for years and widely supported by both parties, especially republicans. https://www.blm.gov/

Yes, I realised my lack of knowledge and creating an assumption there. Sorry.

No worries! It’s a relatively common (and amusing) mistake.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#16
As someone who has grown up with "Freedom to roam"[0] laws, it seems so weird that you would need to keep track of who owns the land where you are hiking. (To be fair you can't just hunt wherever you want in Sweden either.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam#Sweden

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#17

I live in Utah, where 54% of the state is public land. San Juan County is 94% public land. It's cool because you got just a few hours south of the Wasatch Front, where 92% of Utahns live, on state route 29, and you see beautiful vistas of practically untouched territory. The truth is public land is generally unreachable because there are no roads out there. Sure there are lots of roads into BLM land but there's just…

As I hiker I definitely disagree with the notion that no roads = no access. I've been plenty of places you could not construct a road without some pretty hefty engineering.

And note that this article is about a case where there were no roads but the hunters were there anyway. I'm definitely on the side of the corner-crossers, you don't get to control public land by land-locking it. I'd say the owner of the land that land-locks it gets to within reason decide the route that is permitted, but they have to grant it. And I would say that any corner like this should automatically become shared access to both owners of the corner (in this case one of those owners is public, but I would apply the same standard if both were private), they can move anything between their properties so long as they minimize the intrusion and neither can do anything to hinder the other's ability to do so.

Locally, we have an interesting hiking area that's been a matter of dispute for many years and it isn't even due to a hostile land owner. There is private land with an old mine inside a national recreation area here. Unfortunately, it cuts the only way you can reach a canyon without encountering terrain obstacles. Reportedly, somebody's car got damaged while parked there, their insurance company tried to go after the landowner and the landowner's insurance company responded by requiring him to keep people off the land (he hadn't cared about us hikers, our passage did not harm him.) There is also the issue of a couple of mineshafts that idiots (the timbers do not look safe to me!) like to explore. Some states have gone partway towards addressing this--exempting the landowner from liability for any natural hazards (hey, nature doesn't come OSHA-sanitized, us backcountry guys know we need to make our own safety evaluation of the situation!), but this doesn't deal with the issue of old mineshafts. I'd like to see it go farther, exempt the landowner for all natural or old hazards, they're only liable if they create a hazard.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#18
post #11

Someone with big balls should set up a company that flies people in and out of these areas by helicopter. Would probably make a fortune from libertarians

I hesitate to engage with this comment, but this 'method' is the same that was used by the hunters with the ladder. The sticking point is that, sure, they're not stepping foot in the corner-adjacent lots, but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter.

Consider a property line not just a line on the ground, but an invisible wall extending from that line on the ground up toward the sky. That's the issue here, is that the hunters are disturbing the 'air rights' of the adjacent properties by crossing that invisible wall, and not just by stepping physically onto the property. Using a helicopter wouldn't be much of a loophole if the air rights are concerned, I think.

Edit: after comments, yes, duh, it doesn’t extend infinitely and there’s the aspect of reasonable use, c’mon, why do people need their hand held through everything. Flying a helicopter over another property at 100’ is different than 2000’. Talk to the FAA.

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#19
post #11

Someone with big balls should set up a company that flies people in and out of these areas by helicopter. Would probably make a fortune from libertarians

I hesitate to engage with this comment, but this 'method' is the same that was used by the hunters with the ladder. The sticking point is that, sure, they're not stepping foot in the corner-adjacent lots, but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter. Consider a property line not just a line on the ground, but an invisible wall extending from that line on…

> but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter.

Surely there is some altitude at which that doesn't apply? Otherwise there'd be problems with commercial jets too?

Re: A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

#20
post #11

Someone with big balls should set up a company that flies people in and out of these areas by helicopter. Would probably make a fortune from libertarians

I hesitate to engage with this comment, but this 'method' is the same that was used by the hunters with the ladder. The sticking point is that, sure, they're not stepping foot in the corner-adjacent lots, but they are still crossing into the property via the air. This would be the same issue with the helicopter. Consider a property line not just a line on the ground, but an invisible wall extending from that line on…

I guess there must be some upper limit, otherwise normal commercial air traffic at 10k meter / 30k feet would be in serious trouble.

As long as the public land is large enough that you can land the helicopter far enough away from the private property to not expose yourself to other problems (some kind of noise limit maybe?), it seems like it should be doable right?

Fly over the property at 3000 feet and land on public land.

Post reply on HN