Difference between revisions of "Talk:2009-02-03 53 9"
From Geohashing
imported>Ekorren (Depends on the actual location. There is a general right of way for forests in germany.) |
imported>Robyn (Glad you weren't trespassing.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:They didn't break anything. There was an open gate! An open gate without a sign "don't enter" means there is nothing that forbids going in.--[[User:Arvid|Arvid]] 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | :They didn't break anything. There was an open gate! An open gate without a sign "don't enter" means there is nothing that forbids going in.--[[User:Arvid|Arvid]] 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Unless stated differently for a specific area, german law provides a general right of way for recreational purposes. You are not bound to the existing ways if you are walking, it isn't some kind of nature reserve, you don't trample any crops, and it's not fenced or closed by signs. According to the report, the actual hash location ''may'' be debatable (as it may count as a fenced area which are taken out of the general right of way), that would be to judge at the actual location only. The fences may also be there only to keep small game out, and if there was no gate, and no sign either, I wouldn't see any reason to not go in. Again, this basically only applies to forests and meadows. --[[User:Ekorren|Ekorren]] 11:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | :Unless stated differently for a specific area, german law provides a general right of way for recreational purposes. You are not bound to the existing ways if you are walking, it isn't some kind of nature reserve, you don't trample any crops, and it's not fenced or closed by signs. According to the report, the actual hash location ''may'' be debatable (as it may count as a fenced area which are taken out of the general right of way), that would be to judge at the actual location only. The fences may also be there only to keep small game out, and if there was no gate, and no sign either, I wouldn't see any reason to not go in. Again, this basically only applies to forests and meadows. --[[User:Ekorren|Ekorren]] 11:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | Good! It was the comment "possibly breaking into a tree nursery" that set me off. It seemed that the plan was to reach the geohash regardless of possible signs. I'm glad it wasn't a case of trespassing. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 14:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:33, 8 February 2009
Hey, Germans: no breaking into things, including tree nurseries. That is a violation of the rules of geohashing as well as of loal law. I do not want my favourite sport criminalised because some people can't take a No Trespassing award and go home. I'm not sure if it's cultural, or that there are just so many German geohashers, but don't make me come over there and take your GPSes away. -Robyn 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- They didn't break anything. There was an open gate! An open gate without a sign "don't enter" means there is nothing that forbids going in.--Arvid 07:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Unless stated differently for a specific area, german law provides a general right of way for recreational purposes. You are not bound to the existing ways if you are walking, it isn't some kind of nature reserve, you don't trample any crops, and it's not fenced or closed by signs. According to the report, the actual hash location may be debatable (as it may count as a fenced area which are taken out of the general right of way), that would be to judge at the actual location only. The fences may also be there only to keep small game out, and if there was no gate, and no sign either, I wouldn't see any reason to not go in. Again, this basically only applies to forests and meadows. --Ekorren 11:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Good! It was the comment "possibly breaking into a tree nursery" that set me off. It seemed that the plan was to reach the geohash regardless of possible signs. I'm glad it wasn't a case of trespassing. -Robyn 14:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
