[Tagging] How to tag: public lands that are accessed by permit?
colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Tue Jul 19 20:17:00 UTC 2016
On 2016-07-19 22:01, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Il giorno 19 lug 2016, alle ore 20:41, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> ha scritto:
>>> If you need explicit permission, it's access=private, even if there are loads of people with that explicit permission.
>> that's also what I had written on the imports list, but I think it's maybe time to rethink this and evaluate if we shouldn't have more possibilities to differentiate. Surely it is a big difference between a totally private driveway or industrial site and government land where you need a permission but everybody will get it almost automatically?
>> Or another case again in some Italian towns: you need a permission to access with a motor vehicle, but you will only get it if you live there (still, these are not pedestrian like streets, they're more like normal roads, and besides residents psv, taxi and police, and public administration get permits).
>> Not everywhere is GB where current access restrictions seem to be sufficient for describing the situation.
> Thanks, Martin, that's the point I'm trying to make, and it sounds as if I may have convinced you!
> The High Peaks Wilderness is a lot more like a public park than it is like your driveway. Should it be access=private because on the way in, you have to fill out a form and leave it in the letterbox at a place like this ? Does that change fundamentally if you have to download a form like this  from a website, fill it out, print it, and have one copy on your car's dashboard and one in your person? That sort of regime: "it's open to the public, but you have to ask for permission explicitly, which you'll always get if you're following the rules" is common in backcountry areas of the United States.
> It's more a mandatory notification scheme than anything else: if I've picked up a High Peaks permit, the rangers know who I am and what my plans are, so they've got an idea where to look if I'm reported missing (which God forbid!). In a few very stressed areas, they start limiting the number of permits and using them for capacity management, but that's the exception, not the rule. When you consider that on my last trip to the High Peaks, I was at times over 30 km from the nearest road and spent four days before my first supply stop, it's understandable that they want some sort of warning what your plans are. Europe has very few places that are that remote.
> It really still has the feel of 'public park with a few formalities.' It's much more like 'public park' than any of the trips that I've done on private land, where I've needed to ask politely, and answers have varied all over the map:
> - "Who the hell are you?" (from a farmer brandishing a shotgun)
> - "Absolutely not!"
> - "A day-use membership is $55/year for individuals and $65/year for families"
> - "Sure, go ahead, but make sure you pack out anything you pack in!"
> - "Don't go on the south forty, I let the bull out of the barn and he don't like strangers nohow."
> - (At a small resort, where I was asking to cross their land to get to a route") "So, am I bursting at the seams with paying guests that I can't let you park? Please park over by the barn and don't block the driveways!"
> Instead, I know exactly what to expect and know that permission will not be refused for a trip that follows the rules.
Your examples feel like private land to me. Except for the one with the
Maybe this would help me see the distinction:
How much trouble are you in, if you enter without explicit permission?
Are you (in theory at least) risking a fine? Would it be a criminal or
statutory offence, or a civil wrong against the landowner? Or are there
no sanctions? How likely are you to get caught? If a policeman
challenges you for something, will they ask to see your permit?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging