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

Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

apidura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 135 posts

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#61

Post by maccard »

fweimer wrote: post #23
maccard wrote: post #11

I live in Scotland, but grew up in Ireland (where there is no such right). The value of this cannot be understated, IMO. It's not _just_ the right, the fact that it exists forces landowners to consider access routes. Very rarely have I found myself crossing fields full of livestock or someone's front garden, because in most places the landowners have maintained or signalled a preferred walking route. It really is won…

Reading [1], is it really true under Irish law that as long as you are walking on one side of the fence (I'm not sure if “correct” is the best word to use here, given that it's clearly the dangerous side), you are not trespassing? I would expect that land ownership extends beyond the fence and includes the cliff as well.

I dont live there anymore, just visit a few times a year, so I'm afraid that I'm unsure on the specifics!

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#62

Post by FranchuFranchu »

paraselene_ wrote: post #51
082349872349872 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet somehow, despite the general tendency to squareness in political boundaries, electoral boundaries wind up with bizarre shapes...

On that note, what's the squarest country in the world?

The mystery of the squarest country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mrNEVUuZdk

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#63

Post by jacquesm »

walrus01 wrote: post #36
walthamstow wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something has always fascinated me about New World borders of different kinds being so square. Iowa is divided so neatly into 99 square counties (apart from the 99th, a rectangle with a funny story), Wyoming itself is literally a four-sided shape the size of Britain. This kind of thing is so mind-blowing to a European.

I think Europeans may not really get how big some of these places are until they experience it first hand - it can easily take 9 hours at freeway speed to drive from one corner of WA state to the other (Blaine to Walla Walla), and that's if you stick to the freeways and highest possible speed highways, keep cruise control on at 115-120 km/h wherever possible, and take an absolute bare minimum of stops for gas and res…

> and can take a very long time to get from Vancouver to somewhere in the far north > due to its many mountain ranges and thousands of km of coastline.

And let's not forget the weather. In some times of the year the North of BC might as well be on another planet considering how accessible it is.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#65

Post by alkonaut »

This should be the norm everywhere assuming non-landowners are fewer than landowners shouldn’t it? Failure to have freedom to roam/freedom of access either means a lapse in democracy (wildly popular thing never politically proposed for some reason) or some weird constitutional quirk making it hard to legislate.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#66

Post by haspok »

walrus01 wrote: post #36
walthamstow wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something has always fascinated me about New World borders of different kinds being so square. Iowa is divided so neatly into 99 square counties (apart from the 99th, a rectangle with a funny story), Wyoming itself is literally a four-sided shape the size of Britain. This kind of thing is so mind-blowing to a European.

I think Europeans may not really get how big some of these places are until they experience it first hand - it can easily take 9 hours at freeway speed to drive from one corner of WA state to the other (Blaine to Walla Walla), and that's if you stick to the freeways and highest possible speed highways, keep cruise control on at 115-120 km/h wherever possible, and take an absolute bare minimum of stops for gas and res…

I think Americans may not really get how big some of these places are until they experience it first hand...

Consider a San Diego - Boston route, which crosses pretty much the whole US (OK, not Alaska), is around 3000 miles and 45 hours net, give or take.

This compares surprisingly well to a route between Lisbon, Portugal and Tallinn, Estonia, which crosses pretty much the whole of Europe (OK, not the nordic countries, also not even the UK), is around 2700 miles and 44 hours net, give or take. And this is not even an extreme, for example a Gibraltar - Tromso, Norway route (South - North) is 3300 miles, and would take more than 55 hours!

It is also easy to forget that Europe (the continent) does not stop at the EU borders. But some might consider adding the Russian plains cheating!

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#67

Post by sandworm101 »

WilTimSon wrote: post #47
haspok wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, in Yorkshire, where there is the Rights of Way, which gives you the right to pass through private land on a specific path, I had the opposite experience. I can't count how many times I had to pass through ploughed fields, the arrow sign pointing roughly in the direction of the other side of the field, and in between there is... nothing. If it is a popular path then others might have created a faint foo…

The owner must not have thought it through then, because most tourists will chug on straight through their field. Having a marked path is to their own benefit if they have the (mis?)fortune of living on the way to a landmark. I remember a similar case on Malta, where I went up a hill to get a nice view from a cave, recommended to me as part of the tourist route. The whole access to the cave lies across private proper…

Creating a marked path can increase liabilities. It implies that the path is safe. When someone falls and is hurt, the landowner doesnt want to hear that the "designated pathway" was unsafe, that the totally innocent member of the public was literally sent down the garden path to an injury. So landowners will ignore many paths, adopting an "enter at your own risk" approach. One increasing area is accessibility levels. If a landowner installs a gate or other structure on a path, does that structure have to be wheelchair accessible? Can a landowner install a gate designed to disuade bicycles?

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#68

Post by bennysonething »

raesene9 wrote: post #52
maccard wrote: post #11

I live in Scotland, but grew up in Ireland (where there is no such right). The value of this cannot be understated, IMO. It's not _just_ the right, the fact that it exists forces landowners to consider access routes. Very rarely have I found myself crossing fields full of livestock or someone's front garden, because in most places the landowners have maintained or signalled a preferred walking route. It really is won…

It is very nice to be able to walk mostly where you want, although it doesn't always mean that landowners won't challenge you when you're walking. Also worth noting that the right to roam doesn't apply to people's gardens ( https://www.gov.scot/policies/landscape-and-outdoor-access/p... and https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/enjoying-scotlands-o... )

It applies to golf courses which I think is a bit silly. Walking on a fairway is not a good idea, and if a golf balls hits you I'm pretty certain it's the golfers fault.

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#69

Post by balderdash »

“You have to respect the interests of other people, care for the environment and take responsibility for your own actions.”

My experience is the (few) individuals that struggle with this (leaving litter, leaving gates open, trampling crops, letting dogs into animal pastures, interfering with other peoples recreation) really do spoil it for everyone and irreparably damages relations with landowners

Re: Freedom to Roam in Scotland (2019)

#70

Post by bjornsing »

guerrilla wrote: post #8
sprite wrote: post #5

Norway also has this. “Allemannsretten”

As does Sweden.

It’s been customary law in Sweden since pretty much forever. But interestingly it had no explicit foundation in written law until 1994, when a short passage was added to the Swedish constitution: “Everyone shall have access to nature in accordance with ‘allemansrätten’” (“Alla ska ha tillgång till naturen enligt allemansrätten”).
Post reply on HN