May 29, 2020, 08:29 by a...@thaw.de:
>>> For example, here are a few images of "keep out" signs. Now think of
>>> somebody making a package delivery. How are they supposed to determine
>>> whether "implicit" permission exists in their individual case or not? Is it
>>> different for some of
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:03 AM Adam Franco wrote:
> Adjacent to Kevin's home state of New York, here in Vermont we have a
> slightly more open private-land access laws. While property owners may post
> no-trespassing signs (access=private) (statute), the default when unsigned is
>
On 2020-05-29 15:46, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every bit
>> of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner has
>> an absolute right to determine who
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 9:48 AM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> We have no 'right to roam' here other than the fact that you haven't
> been trespassing unless you knew or should have known that your
> presence was unlawful, and are legally liable only for damage you
> cause.
Adjacent to Kevin's home state
On 2020-05-29 14:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 29. May 2020, at 12:57, Colin Smale wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that the
>> footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the road, you
>> can walk on that footway.
>
> I
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:32 AM Colin Smale wrote:
> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every bit
> of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner has
> an absolute right to determine who has right of access, except for certain
> cases,
Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2020-05-29 13:27, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> I feel that access=permissive is not entirely useful for driveways. How
>> do you get permission? Is it legally acceptable to walk along the driveway
>> to the house to ask permission to walk along the driveway to the house in
sent from a phone
> On 29. May 2020, at 12:57, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> Sorry, I think I had a different photo in mind. It's pretty clear that the
> footway is associated with the road, so if you have access to the road, you
> can walk on that footway.
I cannot see this. To me there is a
Colin Smale wrote:
>> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
>>>
>>> (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
>>>
>>> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting
>>> the use of the access=private tag here.
>
> [...] It's
On 2020-05-29 13:27, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:32, Colin Smale wrote:
> [lengthy snip]
>
>> You refer to a specific case - "when visiting the house". It would be
>> unlawful if you were just out for a stroll, without the intention of
>> visiting the house.
On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 11:32, Colin Smale wrote:
Since we're getting down to splitting hairs here, I'll get out my
microtome. :)
>
> In the UK (especially Scotland) land ownership is pretty absolute. Every
> bit of land is owned by someone, even if that owner is The Crown. The owner
> has an
On 2020-05-29 12:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale
> :
>
> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
> Here's an example for such a situation:
> (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
>
> I expect this
Am Fr., 29. Mai 2020 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Colin Smale :
> On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
> Here's an example for such a situation:
> (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Big_single-family_home_2.jpg
>
> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing
>
On 2020-05-29 08:29, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
>> letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
>> over your land to fulfil his legal duty.
>
> Sure. But access=private has nothing to do with
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> these examples are pretty clear, but many situations are more like this:
> https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3790/10358136313_96dbe07548_b.jpg
>
> the fence is very low and the gate is always open.
That's true. But with situations like that, even lawyers sometimes
sent from a phone
> On 29. May 2020, at 08:31, Arne Johannessen wrote:
>
> I expect this driveway is on private property. But I see nothing supporting
> the use of the access=private tag here.
these examples are pretty clear, but many situations are more like this:
Colin Smale wrote:
>
> [...] So it would sound reasonable to me that, if your
> letterbox is in your front door, you accept that the postman can pass
> over your land to fulfil his legal duty.
Sure. But access=private has nothing to do with private ownership. See below.
> I believe that there
Hi Arne,
On 2020-05-28 02:36, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> Colin Smale wrote:
>
>> In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the landowner to
>> claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the
>> immediate and exclusive possession of another".
Colin Smale wrote:
>
> In the UK simple trespass to land is not illegal, it is for the landowner to
> claim under civil law: "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the
> immediate and exclusive possession of another". What constitutes
> "unjustifiable" is the key here. Delivering
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:17:20AM +0200, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> I interpreted "random person" as meaning "random traffic, not destined
> for your uncle's residence".
>
> But perhaps you meant that the person is in fact a visitor destined
> for your uncle's residence – maybe trying to sell
On 2020-05-27 08:17, Arne Johannessen wrote:
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: May 26,
> 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> wrote:
> Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for delivery
> services?
> My uncle has farm, with clearly private
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> May 26, 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de:
>> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe it can be argued that there is implicit permission for delivery
>>> services?
>>> My uncle has farm, with clearly private yard (it is unsigned).
>>>
>>> Postman or
May 26, 2020, 08:28 by a...@thaw.de:
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>> May 25, 2020, 02:45 by a...@thaw.de:
>>
>>>
>>> [access=private driveways implicitly permitting delivieries to destination?]
>>>
>>> Not all deliveries are actively requested, and the delivery person can't
>>>
Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> May 25, 2020, 02:45 by a...@thaw.de:
>>
>> [access=private driveways implicitly permitting delivieries to destination?]
>>
>> Not all deliveries are actively requested, and the delivery person can't
>> know if you requested it or not.
>
> Good point.
24 matches
Mail list logo
