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

181–189 of 189 posts

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

#181

Post by teddyh »

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 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.

Tell me you haven’t even visited Sweden without telling me you haven’t ever been to Sweden.

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

#182

Post by bergenty »

teddyh wrote: post #180
bergenty wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I have a 24 acre backyard

Your usage of the word “backyard” differs from everybody else’s.

It definitely doesn’t, not according to the dictionary anyway.

As an aside, I think you may be underestimating how large American homes and properties can be, it’s not Europe scale. 5 acres really isn’t all that large.

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

#183

Post by dathinab »

sb057 wrote: post #152
dathinab wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if America had an equivalent A problem is that (at least some parts of) America has pretty absurd "stand your ground" laws (absurd from a EU POV). Even in the EU countries which don't have freedom to roam laws it is most times safe and often rather inconsequential to trespass, as long as (very oversimplified) you don't climb any fences or similar and keep on the path. (I.e. you have only "accidenta…

>A problem is that (at least some parts of) America has pretty absurd "stand your ground" laws (absurd from a EU POV). You're confusing "stand your ground" (wherein one can defend against an attacker regardless of where they are) and "castle doctrine" (wherein one can defend against an attacker if residing on one's property). It's the latter that's applicable in this case, but only if the person trespassing is also a…

Sure I mixed up the terms but the difference is how the law is interpreted today.

in many EU countries the ways you can defend against an attacker are in practice much more limited and highly contextual. If you kill someone who is hiking across your property you are most likely going to prison for killing, even "just" using a taser or holding them down until police arives can easily count as unproportional amounts of force and get you sentenced for hurting the trespasser. On the other hand you are much more likely to get away with it in some US states.

Furthermore in some EU countries trespassing laws are also more limited and can even have unexpected "gaps". Like there had been a case in which it was found that activists which trespassed onto a farm to document animal abuse where not found guilty of trespassing as they had a reasonable reason to enter the property.

And sure it's something else if you idk. brake into someones home instead of "just" trespassingly pass through a property (especially if the property is not fenced off, I think in some countries if a property is not fenced of and there is a path especially if its without a sign and it's not just obviously a garden of a house it doesn't even count as trespassing at all).

Lastly people having a gun at hand is also much more rare in many EU countries.

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

#184

Post by teddyh »

bergenty wrote: post #182
teddyh wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your usage of the word “backyard” differs from everybody else’s.

It definitely doesn’t, not according to the dictionary anyway. As an aside, I think you may be underestimating how large American homes and properties can be, it’s not Europe scale. 5 acres really isn’t all that large.

What matters is how people here would interpret your statement “camping in my backyard”. I think most people here would interpret that as “too close for comfort”, not “somewhere within my 24 acre lot”. Therefore, your statement is misleading. Ergo, FUD.

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

#185

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #154
HarryHirsch wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LEO & news orgs - both of whom are in the exact position to know better They are not going to stop producing more of the "stranger danger" nonsense, no matter how politely they are asked. You have to start with the consumers if things are ever going to improve.

Regarding LEO, I'm inclined to agree. FBI stats are 2 clicks away so LEO's relentless tendency to portray custodial kidnappings as stranger abductions is at best disingenuous. The press' issue is one of competency tho. Reporters parrot LEO (gov, corp) PR verbatim, without the least bit of verification, because they are inept. Once reporters get their dopamine hit from public freakout, they are fulfilled. Public freak…

In case anyone ever reads this: My above response became unhelpfully harsh toward the end. I could have framed that argument in a less hostile light.

It fairly contrasts with me earlier calling out a post for being bitter.

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

#186

Post by Wildgameeater06 »

The public should have access through private land to get to public land this whole thing with land ownership making money off of public land is a crock and if that’s the case the public should change the land owners for taking animals off that public land that have no access to the public

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

#187

Post by Wildgameeater06 »

behringer wrote: post #80
exit wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think "not one inch across my property line" makes sense, but there is still a problem to resolve regarding access to public land. in particular the article describes a problem with public land being inaccessible except through "corner crossing".

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.

Well said

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

#188

Post by Wildgameeater06 »

abruzzi wrote: post #42

this is very common in the west. Its one of several ways to "own" more property than you paid for. If your property completely encloses 1000 acres of public land, that land is as good as yours (with the exception of building things, but many of the property owners in these cases are taking people hunting on the land, so no permanant structures would be built anyway.) Another common thing is land leases. I don't know…

I personally think this is the case in most remote areas bordered by private land as the land owners selll sub leases to big hunting companies and the hunting companies make profit off of public land as it is like a lot of areas here in Oregon

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

#189

Post by Wildgameeater06 »

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #27

This is insane. Nobody should be allowed to block access like that. The land owner was harassing these men while they were on public land and is continuing to harass them using a court. The landowner should be in prison.

After reading this article I got a deep impression that the land owner is making profit off of the public land The hunters where with in there rights to corner crossing the private land
Post reply on HN