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

A navigation app that illuminates public land within privately held property

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 189 posts

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

#161

Post by dann0 »

Siddarth1977 wrote: post #119
mediascreen wrote: post #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

"Freedom to roam" laws are an archaic notion that only sort of work in very specific locations like the Nordic countries. Even with a large staff of park rangers and a budget for trail maintenance, trash bins, toilet facilities and informational signs about "leave no trace" ethics, it's still hard to minimize the damage tourists do in parks. And even within parks, we don't let people freely roam, we ask them to stay…

I think you’re missing the point. The right to roam is about the public having access to public land. Public land is paid for and supported by taxpayers, and is therefore theirs to enjoy.

Surrounding public land by privately held land, with no rights for the public to freely access it is just not right. It essentially becomes the domain of the land owner that controls access, which then becomes a form of market intervention by the government.

This is often a direct subsidisation of a private enterprise and should be opposed by the left because it denies equality and freedom of movement to the people that own the land. It should be opposed by the right as government intervention and interference. It only benefits the individual landowner.

Of course, this issue is magnified by the colonial concept of land ownership and ignores any preceding title or use of the land. This also prevents traditional owners from accessing sites of significance.

This is not a Nordic idea. Ideas similar the right to roam built many of the economies of new world countries. Cowboys and cattle drives in the US, Drovers in Australia relied on the free movement of men and stock over public and private land.

Finally, the land belongs to the people. Laws exist in many jurisdictions for governments to reclaim any land for any reason. Private ownership should be considered long term, but temporary. Denying access to something that the people own is undemocratic, unfair, and unnecessary. Access and maintenance shouldn’t be reduced to the cost of stewardship.

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

#162

Post by bergenty »

belorn wrote: post #68
exit wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is "a fair distance" specified?

As with any legal term, the exact specification comes down to each individual country and their set of precedence and legal culture. One can ask a lawyer about any legal term and the answer will always be "it depend". Camping for example, using Sweden as an example, is limited based on if a person is living nearby, what the land is used for, risk of damage to the environment (land and animals included), sanitation, a…

Sweden needs that law because it’s a tiny country where you can’t be outdoors for extended periods for more than 6 months out of the year. The US is huge. People aren’t really missing out if they don’t go on other peoples properties.

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

#163

Post by Brian_K_White »

bombcar wrote: post #7
djha-skin wrote: post #2

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…

There’s a difference in kind between “you can drive to this plot of land the size of a smaller state but there are no roads in it” and “the only way to reach this land at all is via helicopter”.

The land owners in this case are even actually arguing that so much as waving your arm over their line violates their air space, so even a helecopter is no good. Which makes me wonder why I don't immediately go buy a $5000 plot somewhere and sue all the airlines for millions.

edit - ok actually a helecopter is good, see several other comments

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

#164

Post by Brian_K_White »

phpisthebest wrote: post #92
f0000 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we should only imprison the poor not white collar criminals they're too similar to ourselves.

who about we do not imprison either, only using prison to 1. Separate violent people from society 2. Separate people who through a long pattern of behavior have proven they cant or are unwilling the follow the laws of civil society Economic status should not be a factor

3. Penalize someone with a penalty that actually matters to them.

Fining a rich person is simply giving them the option to pay for a pass to do something that's supposed to be illegal.

There is a rule in my state that cars have to display license plates on both the front and rear of the car. But one of my cars has a sharp sporty front end and the licence plate bracket would be ugly. So I just eat the ticket I get once in a blue moon. Mentally it's simply my trivial token service charge for getting to have what I want.

I don't know what the fair penalty should be for that infraction, but if the goal is to ensure every vehicle displays plates on both sides because it's actually important, then it's not whatever $50 or $100 I paid maybe once, possibly twice in 20 years. Maybe the fine just needs to be a percentage of income or assets instead of an arbitrary fixed value, or maybe it needs to be some other consequence that I actually feel yet won't unfairly harm someone else more than me for the same wrongdoing. (I can afford to take lyft everywhere for instance, or just stay home even, so even losing my license would inconvenience me slightly, but could be devastating to someone else.) Or if the goal is just to collect a fine and no one cares about the plates, well then job done I guess.

But the point is I don't know if "blocking a public path" should qualify for prison exactly either, but there are other possible justifications for prison than just seperation. It may be simply a consequence that actually matters to the people whos actions you are trying to regulate.

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

#165

Post by Siddarth1977 »

dann0 wrote: post #161
Siddarth1977 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Freedom to roam" laws are an archaic notion that only sort of work in very specific locations like the Nordic countries. Even with a large staff of park rangers and a budget for trail maintenance, trash bins, toilet facilities and informational signs about "leave no trace" ethics, it's still hard to minimize the damage tourists do in parks. And even within parks, we don't let people freely roam, we ask them to stay…

I think you’re missing the point. The right to roam is about the public having access to public land. Public land is paid for and supported by taxpayers, and is therefore theirs to enjoy. Surrounding public land by privately held land, with no rights for the public to freely access it is just not right. It essentially becomes the domain of the land owner that controls access, which then becomes a form of market inter…

It looks like there's a disconnect here on what we're talking about for "freedom to roam". If you read through the Wikipedia article linked in the comment I was responding to, you'll see that it's about private property, not public parks.

The issue of land being inaccessible by virtue of being surrounded by private land without roads is solved by the unrelated, separate legal notion of an "easement" to allow access. Easements are used regardless of if the landlocked plot of land is publicly or privately owned.

I agree with you in the general notion of "It's bad that this public land is inaccessible and that should be fixed". But just clarifying on the terms.

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

#166

Post by barsonme »

daydream wrote: post #156
barsonme wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This already happens with public utilities and whatnot. I own a number of acres with a public walking trail through part of it. I don’t particularly like having random people being able to walk though my property, but honestly it’s such a minor inconvenience. And people use it much less than you’d think, especially in sparsely populated places like Wyoming.

If you own the property how is the public allowed to walk on the trails? Is there an easement or something similar?

Yeah, there is an easement for the trail.

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

#167

Post by mediascreen »

balderdash wrote: post #141
mediascreen wrote: post #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

Curious about how civil liability works if someone is injured on your land while partaking of their freedom to roam privileges? In the US, a lot of the desire to keep people off private lands is liability driven (which is not mentioned in the article) e.g. someone decides to wander onto your land where you are building a house in the country, falls in a ditch at the construction site and sues you for their injuries w…

Sweden doesn't have the same system of punitive damages.

I am not a lawyer, but I would guess that this might result in a small fee for not following building ordinances or something more serious if gross negligence was involved. People suing each other for millions is not really a thing in Sweden.

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

#168

Post by pas »

Zak wrote: post #110
theptip wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, “attractive nuisance”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine I don’t know about liability for injury to adults trespassing but it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s a thing in some jurisdictions. I’d be fine with explicitly limiting liability in exchange for passing “right to roam” laws, the US is way to litigious.

This is an area of the law I find problematic. It seems to me there should be a way to tolerate access without assuming any liability.

adhesion contracts? basically a sign that says "by entering you accept all liability"

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

#169

Post by saagarjha »

daydream wrote: post #158
saagarjha wrote: post #145

Does anyone know if I could go look up ownership of parcels of land in my city? I don’t really need a hiking map, I was just wondering if there was a government database or something where I could look up who owned what.

In the US this tends to be done at the city or county level, as far as I know. In my state each city has their own land parcel database that they make available. That said, this commenter pointed to https://regrid.com as a company that aggregates all this local data and provides a nationwide parcel map - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33755133 . Regrid looks great and might work for you.

Ah, yes, this is pretty close to what I needed. I across referenced it with my county's parcel survey :)

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

#170

Post by saagarjha »

Aachen wrote: post #150
saagarjha wrote: post #145

Does anyone know if I could go look up ownership of parcels of land in my city? I don’t really need a hiking map, I was just wondering if there was a government database or something where I could look up who owned what.

If you're in Germany, ALKIS I think shows what you're looking for. If in the Netherlands, check PDOK. Your username somehow gives me an Indian vibe though, so not sure if this was helpful. Might help to specify which city or area you're asking after.

Indian-American living in the Bay Area, I used Regrid as suggested by another commenter.
Post reply on HN