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

171–180 of 189 posts

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

#171

Post by pas »

balderdash wrote: post #143
pas wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait. How is anyone liable if someone slips & trips while trespassing? Being held liable for setting booby traps for thieves, sure, completely understandable. But ... injury while walking ... especially on land that wasn't prepared as a path/road? WTF Is this some kind of black comedy bingo contest? > attitudes against something as obvious as littering just aren't universal either. > Instagram has become an utter can…

In some states even if the person is trespassing you can be liable for contributory negligence. https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/who-is-liable-if-a-trespas...

ah, too bad that article only has basically one example, and everything else accessible via a few Google searches is complete trash on the subject :(

it seems the standard seems to be somewhere around "ordinary care" and reasonably expecting trespassers

so - to my layman eyes - it seems simple, that if someone slips while crossing my field/forest and it's in its natural state, then I contributed nothing :)

built environment is different (and usually well demarcated), and the problem is probably with backyards and front lawns and other gardens, where people leave out stuff, let's say a saw.

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

#172

Post by mediascreen »

bergenty wrote: post #162
belorn wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sweden is about the size of California with 1/4 of the population.

The notion that we stay inside during half of the year is funny. Normally foreign media loves to write about children sleeping outside in the winter and all-weather forest kindergartens. And then we have all the german tourists that love camping and hiking.

I understand that it seems strange to hike on other peoples property. It's not that I have to go looking for privately owned property, it's that I can't imagine ever having to keep track of land ownership when I am out hiking, camping, skiing or picking berries or mushrooms.

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

#173

Post by nkrisc »

dixie_land wrote: post #51
nkrisc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may not be citing specific law, but instead generally describing the spirit of a broad set of such laws.

then essentially it's unenforceable, so no I don't want that in the states. fair to me means "not one inch across my property line"

How so? Specific laws might define specific distances. The spirit of the law is some reasonable distance, and the letter of a specific implementation of such a law might define a distance, which you could demarcate on your property if it were an issue, much like people may demarcate the boundaries of their property if trespass is an issue today.

> fair to me means "not one inch across my property line"

Then the compromise should be that vast wilderness can’t be privately owned.

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

#174

Post by mrmanner »

bergenty wrote: post #22
Scaevolus wrote: post #21

A number of European countries have "freedom to roam". It would be nice if America had an equivalent, but given how lobbying works that seems impossible at this point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

I wouldn’t want that in the US. We have more than enough national public land where people are free to roam. The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. We are a very individualistic people, I don’t want people in my little nation state.

Sweden, one of the usual examples when freedom to roam is discussed, has laws agains home invasion including yards, gardens, etc. since at least 800 years. This has nothing to do with property rights, any home regardless of ownership structure is protected. So camping in someone's backyard could most definitely be illegal even if you were to introduce freedom to roam :)

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

#175

Post by nkrisc »

randallsquared wrote: post #135
behringer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution is simple. Land owners should just be required to grant access to public land they border. If you don't like that, don't buy property that borders public land.

Virtually every property borders public land of some kind (a public road right of way, typically). It might be interesting to minimally specify what it means to allow access in a way that doesn't allow virtually any path across one's land. You can't just require allowance from any other border directly to the nearest border of public land, for this reason (could be through the owner's house or garden). One way might…

Specifying some minimum property size should cover most cases, as well as specifying land uses that are or are not covered by the requirement for public access.

If you own a large parcel of land but are actively farming it, I think disallowing public access is reasonable. If you own hundreds of acres of wilderness, I think public access to traverse the wild areas of your property is perfectly reasonable, even light camping with reasonable restrictions. Specific issues can be prosecuted individually, instead of a blanket ban on all public access.

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

#176

Post by zoklet-enjoyer »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #164
phpisthebest wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 onc…

It's not just that he blocked a public path with his signs. He also had his employees harass these men, got them arrested for trespassing, and is suing them for millions of dollars.

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

#177

Post by LorenPechtel »

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?

Trails create easements that can continue even when the land becomes private.

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

#178

Post by LorenPechtel »

JamesianP wrote: post #93
b3morales wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with public ownership; it occurs with private ownership of the interior parcel as well. Are the outer parcel owners also unfairly encumbered by an access easement then?

Depends how they got that way. Will they pay for it? Perhaps they made an unwise investment and should have paid for more rights. I have seen the case where someone buys a parcel from a larger property. Then turned around and demand easement access from the neighbor on the other side who was not party to the deal, because that neighbor has better roads and is easier to cross.

The burden should be on the one who created the landlocked parcel.

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

#179

Post by Zak »

pas wrote: post #168
Zak wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

I don't think that would work because attractive nuisance is meant to be about risks to children, who are generally presumed to be unable to waive liability. Originally, it was only applied to very young children, but has been expanded. In one case, 17 year old boys were allowed to use it: https://www.law.com/almID/900005548604/

Very young unsupervised children probably aren't an issue for a property in a remote area, but 17 year olds on ATVs could easily access such a property and could certainly find ways to injure themselves with the combination of ATVs and terrain.

I think statutory limits on liability for attractive nuisance would probably be the best answer. It should not be usable over a certain age - ten seems about right to me. That's old enough to know things like drowning is possible, unfamiliar machinery is dangerous, and large animals can hurt you.

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

#180

Post by teddyh »

bergenty wrote: post #157
teddyh wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it’s 70m that’s still very close “150 metres in Norway and in all countries far enough that you do not inconvenience anyone and particularly not those in the nearest house.” — https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Right_to_access_in_the_Nordic... > This will probably result in a chain of homeless people Countries with Freedom to Roam laws have homeless people, too. What you describe has not happened. > stay in your bac…

Yes, I have a 24 acre backyard

Your usage of the word “backyard” differs from everybody else’s.
Post reply on HN