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

71–80 of 189 posts

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

#71

Post by lazide »

ryanblakeley wrote: post #53

Corner crossing seems like something that could be solved by saying "where two corners meet there must be an easement xx meters wide to allow the public to cross". I can't imagine any reason why the private landowner should be allowed to put up fencing and signs that block the corner. In cases where the only way to access a parcel of public land is through private land then an easement should be created. If a road or…

Typically that happens when it’s needed, and then (unless someone tries to stop it), it becomes a defacto easement after awhile.

A lot of land in the US is newly settled (by European standards) especially anything other west, so those kinds of things haven’t risen to the level of official standards. The basic ‘if it’s your property, you can do what you want, including people off of it’ is still mostly true, though it is getting more and more ‘supplemented’ by others rights over time (cough zoning, HOAs, etc)

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

#72

Post by seattle_spring »

bombcar wrote: post #5
shantaram07 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.

BLM Land has been a mainstay of the US for years and widely supported by both parties, especially republicans. https://www.blm.gov/

Hmm not so sure about that. Republicans are generally pissed that Utah has so much federal land. Their talking point is often explicitly aiming to grant it back to the state. Part of the reason they were so against Bears Ears and Grand Staircase was because it further pushed back what the state could do with that land.

And please don’t kid yourself if you think they want the state to control it for preservation.

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

#73

Post by b3morales »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #25
LorenPechtel wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I hiker I definitely disagree with the notion that no roads = no access. I've been plenty of places you could not construct a road without some pretty hefty engineering. And note that this article is about a case where there were no roads but the hunters were there anyway. I'm definitely on the side of the corner-crossers, you don't get to control public land by land-locking it. I'd say the owner of the land that…

> I'd say the owner of the land that land-locks it gets to within reason decide the route that is permitted Suppose that the public land is sandwiched between two private owners. Which of those private owners must grant the access? Worse, suppose that that chunk in the middle wasn't originally public land, but is later purchased by the state. At that point, the previous owners - having done nothing on their own - are…

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?

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

#74

Post by theptip »

pas wrote: post #63
motohagiography wrote: post #60

The kicker in the article that "nobody is going to grant access out of the goodness of their heart," is absolutely untrue. There are fox hunts and hikes in my area where landowners grant access for this reason. What has done the most harm is insurance and the risk of liability and litigation from people injuring themselves on your land, and that has made landowners become very aggressive about trespassers, as it just…

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…

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.

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

#75

Post by barsonme »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #25
LorenPechtel wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I hiker I definitely disagree with the notion that no roads = no access. I've been plenty of places you could not construct a road without some pretty hefty engineering. And note that this article is about a case where there were no roads but the hunters were there anyway. I'm definitely on the side of the corner-crossers, you don't get to control public land by land-locking it. I'd say the owner of the land that…

> I'd say the owner of the land that land-locks it gets to within reason decide the route that is permitted Suppose that the public land is sandwiched between two private owners. Which of those private owners must grant the access? Worse, suppose that that chunk in the middle wasn't originally public land, but is later purchased by the state. At that point, the previous owners - having done nothing on their own - are…

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.

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

#76

Post by progre »

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

In fact, hunting rights (leased or as land owner) supersedes the "freedom to roam" rights. So a hunting party is fully within their rights to ask you to leave.

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

#77

Post by cscurmudgeon »

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

In practice it doesn't matter at all, just BLM (Bureau of Land Management) alone owns 387,500 sq mi of public land. For comparison, Scotland, is 30,090 sq mi in size .

This is not counting local, state and national parks and forests.

Why fix a problem that doesn't exist?

Some of the largest parks are comparable in size to European countries.

https://mapfight.xyz/map/yellowstone/

https://mapfight.xyz/map/death.valley/

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

#78

Post by runsWphotons »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #57
bergenty wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard. Story: A regional gov agency bought a large tract of land behind my home for conservation. A fireline was cut all around the edge of the tract and lined with a 4' wire fence that ran adjacent to our properties. Homeowners were unitedly happy the land wouldn't be developed but some were upset it was now available for public daytime use. Two disgruntled nei…

why were her concerns more important than his? old man was probably alone all day as well and unsettled

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by behringer »

exit wrote: post #62
dixie_land wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

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.

Post reply on HN