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

Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#161

Post by Lawtonfogle »

donatj wrote: post #72
spdustin wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of other crimes that can be committed before law enforcement would arrive. Would you suggest those are non-issues as well? It's hard for me to believe that you're not being a troll on purpose, and that you honestly are the sort of selfish person that you would deny someone access to or from their own home. Oh, wait, I think I get it. You don't own a house? That must be it. You're not a selfish jerk, y…

I actually rent a house with intent to buy soon. If someone did block my driveway, and I needed to get somewhere I would politely ask them to move because that's how human interaction should work. I'm not trolling, I'm making a general plea for more cool headed reasonable human interaction. If there were an emergency and my driveway was blocked I would probably drive through the grass as it is just grass and I have m…

>If someone did block my driveway, and I needed to get somewhere I would politely ask them to move because that's how human interaction should work. I'm not trolling, I'm making a general plea for more cool headed reasonable human interaction.

That is like politely asking people to not park in handicap spaces instead of handing out tickets in the hundreds of dollars. The reason the tickets are justified is because it wasn't an accident (I'm sure a small number of cases are and it might be possible to get it tossed if the space is improperly marked). They purposefully, and dare I say selfishly, made the choice to do something they knew they shouldn't have which can cause problems for others.

Yes, you could respond politely, but at a certain point politeness doesn't really cut it. Which is why we have tickets.

>You're doing far more harm to them than they did to you. That kind of enforcement just makes the world a much more unfriendly place, and does not serve the common good.

A couple hundred dollar ticket can really mess up a lower income family, and they were only using the space for a couple of minutes while they ran in to buy some milk/drop off a letter/what have you. You are definitely doing more harm to them than they did to you. But if you didn't do this, those parking spaces would never be available for those who are truly handicapped because of the unending stream of people running in for just a minute.

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#162

Post by Lawtonfogle »

dragonwriter wrote: post #150
jarsin wrote: post #141

Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat? Whats the difference between that homeowner saying "hey i am going to break your kneecaps" vs "hey I have more money than you and am going to destroy your life with legal action." - which is what he was implying in his email

> Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat? Because it isn't a threat of violence. OTOH, it can be an unlawful threat, as, e.g., extortion. [1] [1] http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/hynes101...

Every law is backed by violence. A threat of legal action is a threat of violence, even if it is delayed.

So instead of breaking knee caps, it is more like threatening to get a person who may charge them $500 and if they don't pay, then break their knee caps. There is a chance they won't do anything, but it is still a threat of violence.

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#163

Post by chillingeffect »

wanderingstan wrote: post #68
miclip wrote: post #60

Similar issue in Sausalito above the Bridge. Wolfback Ridge Rd is a publicly maintained road yet they have a gate and sign that says otherwise. It is strictly enforced by Sausalito Police on behalf of residents. There's some great short hikes up there that offer excellent views of the Golden Gate Bridge and headlands. Even google didn't dare go up there: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8512481,-122.4911711,3a,75y,...…

Holy cow. Anyone want to organize a mass bike ride or hike there?

I would join everyone, but given the stories I'm hearing, I wouldn't feel safe without afirearm ready and California has repealed open carry [ 1 ], so we'll just have to let this one go to the town.

[ 1 ] http://www.shouselaw.com/open-carry.html

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#164

Post by mikestew »

donatj wrote: post #43
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #38

On the one hand I can kinda feel the pain of the homeowners. When my neighbor recently had a yard sale, I basically had to sit in my driveway telling people to not block it in case I had to get out. Some would actually try and argue with me. So, I know how selfish and stupid people can be sometimes. But, selfish and stupid works both ways. The homeowners near there can't deny people right of way on public streets. Th…

You couldn't just ask them to move if/when you did actually have to get out? People don't spend usually more than a few minutes at yard sales and it sounds to me like you were just being unreasonable. If you were so worried you might need to leave at an absolute moments notice (doctor on call or something?) why not just park in the street yourself?

So you're willing to put the onus on the blockee instead of, I dunno, not blocking their driveway and walking an extra 30 meters? There are words for that, none of them nice.

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#165

Post by mikestew »

donatj wrote: post #159
criddell wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not trolling, I'm making a general plea for more cool headed reasonable human interaction. That's great. Would you park and block somebody's driveway?

If I was running to a yard sale for a couple minutes and there was nowhere else to park? Of course.

There's always someplace else to park. The question is whether you're more lazy than polite.

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#166

Post by JustSomeNobody »

gburt wrote: post #99
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? Look, it is plain rude to park directly in front of someone's drive. There's no two ways about that. I should not have to be go and park my car somewhere else because people can't be bothered to not be rude. I have plenty of property in front of my house that they could have parked (it's 25 extra feet they would have had to walk). That's what plenty of other people were doing. There's plenty of open space…

You are being unreasonable. The grandparent is correct. Any parker would've left in less than 5 minutes. You would not have even known they were there. If they did not leave and you needed out, you could have simply asked them to leave. Property rights in this strange absolutist never-to-be-violated interpretation would make a hell of a world. Dropped your wallet? WELL, I CAN'T PICK IT UP FOR YOU BECAUSE THAT'S THEFT…

Actually, not picking up the wallet would be considered rude.

This isn't about property. It's about manners. I'm sorry the sequence of events that has led up to your life at this moment prevent you from differentiating.

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#167

Post by jarsin »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #162
dragonwriter wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat? Because it isn't a threat of violence. OTOH, it can be an unlawful threat, as, e.g., extortion. [1] [1] http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/hynes101...

Every law is backed by violence. A threat of legal action is a threat of violence, even if it is delayed. So instead of breaking knee caps, it is more like threatening to get a person who may charge them $500 and if they don't pay, then break their knee caps. There is a chance they won't do anything, but it is still a threat of violence.

Yes this is exactly what i was getting at. If you take the stance that every law is backed by violence essentially.. AND you now say you are going to use the law to get someone to stop doing something that is perfectly legal and OK such as posting a helpful blog on the internet...

Then to me these people are no different from the types of people that threaten to harm you to get you to do what they want.

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#168

Post by dragonwriter »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #162
dragonwriter wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not considered the same as a violent threat? Because it isn't a threat of violence. OTOH, it can be an unlawful threat, as, e.g., extortion. [1] [1] http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/hynes101...

Every law is backed by violence. A threat of legal action is a threat of violence, even if it is delayed. So instead of breaking knee caps, it is more like threatening to get a person who may charge them $500 and if they don't pay, then break their knee caps. There is a chance they won't do anything, but it is still a threat of violence.

No, in general, a threat of legal action might, if you want to take things to extremes, be a threat that, if you don't comply, the actor will attempt to secure an authorization from a third party (the judiciary) that would impose conditions under threat of violence, but it is not, in itself, a threat of violence, even delayed violence.

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#169

Post by aurelius12 »

miclip wrote: post #131
asmithmd1 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but it looks like the story is more complicated then a simple public or private. This tax plot seems to show the road past the gate to the sharp bend IS public, but after the sharp bend their is no road easement recorded, the property lines go right to the middle of the road making it like a private shared driveway: http://www.marinmap.org/Planner/queryRM.aspx?PID=064-276-22 And there is the additional complica…

I believe the whole road is maintained by the city. If it's a private road the residents should pay for it. At the top of the hill before the bend there is adequate space to turn around if that is where the gate should be. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wolfback+Ridge+Rd,+Sausali... The road at the top is also a loop.

I emailed Jonathon Goldman, the Dir. of Public Works and got a response. He wrote:

Good afternoon. Here's a short answer from MarinMap (attached). The pieces of roadway that have no zoning, are inside the City Limits (the red dashed line) and have no parcel boundaries crossing them are generally public right of way. Roads that transit parcels with a solid color (and are therefore not as visible on the attached), or have parcel boundaries across them or near the centerline are private and not publically-maintained. Wolfback Ridge Road, for example, has a public right of way part between US 101 and APN 064-276-22 (owned by the Marin Municipal Water District), a part that lies outside the City Limits and parts on private properties. Happy to try to answer any more specific questions. At some point, a land surveyor would be necessary to sort that all out.

The graphic he references is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hcsaclyxglbn1ih/Wolfback%20Zoning....

Honestly, I still can't tell which parts really are public and which parts aren't.

Re: Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014)

#170

Post by _0ffh »

SquareWheel wrote: post #48
_0ffh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah right, people will downvote without comment for having a different opinion. I've been told this was intended behaviour, but not exactly why. Happens to everyone, I suppose. I've recently been voted into the lighter shades for calling out questionable ideology in an article. Even though it was not even a popular news item, I got at least eight or nine downvotes, and still ended up at +2 after waiting a day. That'…

>upvotes+downvotes Seems this has two problems. One is promoting highly-voted on comments only encourages more voting, ensuring those comments stay at the top. Two is that extremely downvoted comments would be raised to the top, regardless of upvotes. It may prove to surface spam, trolling, or other nasties.

Yup, upvote for fact! I realised this like about two minutes after I walked away from my desk! :) Maybe it would be best to have a "raw stream" which gives both the number of upvotes and downvotes, so you can inject a local js file to reorder stuff according to whatever you find is sensible?
Post reply on HN