> > > > I found it rather interesting to note that in the UK, > > property owners have to assert the right of ownership on > > their lands, otherwise the public can wander about it at > > will. I guess that's the difference between a country with a > > couple hundred years of history versus thousands of years of > > history. We came in and pretended that there was no history > > in North America, and we could divvy it up from a clean slate. > > I don't know where the view came from that in England property owners have > to assert the right of ownership ... Otherwise the public can wander about > it at will". IMHO this is in general not true. A member of the public acting > in that way would be a trespasser and committing a tort in law that would be > subject to civil action. The only exception is the recent creation of > "access land"; the public does have the "right to roam" on designated > "access land" (as created and designated under the CROW Act). This is why in > England (and Wales) the concept of "public rights of way" is so important > (and has to be defended so vigorously). On these designated ways (as per the > corresponding "definitive map" and "definitive statement") the public has > the right to travel "the Queen's Highway" - either on foot or on a horse > according to their status (bicycles are also now allowed where horses are > allowed unless otherwise specified). In Scotland - and in many Continental > European countries the situation is the reverse and more as described by > whomever made the earlier post: i.e. the public has the right to roam > everywhere (with certain common-sense exceptions - e.g. usually not in > someone's garden or on cultivated land) unless otherwise specified - hence > the expressions: allemansrätt (Sweden), Wegefreiheit (Austria - can't > remember the correct translation for Germany), jokamiehenoikeus (Finland), > etc.
Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer, isn't there a concept that if a a route through a bit of land has been used by the public for a number of years, without the obstruction by the owner, it becomes a right of way? Randomly searching the internet, this link (http://www.rightofwaylaws.co.uk/how_can_I_stop_people_using_my_land_as_if_it_is_a_right_of_way.html) says that it is 20 years and is s.31 of the Highways Act 1980. Growing up I recall a local church had a car park that could be used as a cut-through. In order to prevent it becoming a right-of-way they had various notices up saying it wasn't and locked the gates to it once a year. Like I say, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is true, but I imagine this is where that view comes from Matt _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
