[bergenty]

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.

[teddyh]

> The last thing I want is some random camping in my backyard.

FUD. Freedom to Roam laws only allow camping a fair distance away from inhabited buildings.

[exit]

how is "a fair distance" specified?

[belorn]

As with any legal term, the exact specification comes down to each individual country and their set of precedence and legal culture. One can ask a lawyer about any legal term and the answer will always be "it depend".

Camping for example, using Sweden as an example, is limited based on if a person is living nearby, what the land is used for, risk of damage to the environment (land and animals included), sanitation, and government issued exceptions and restriction. In practice most people choose to pay for a camping place in order to be allowed to camp. Place near roads are generally used for farming or grazing (neither allow camping under freedom to roam), nature reserves tend to be generally restricted by the government, and naturally people need a place to park their car for a extended time which is not a right given under freedom to roam.

What that leaves most people is the freedom to camp (in small groups) in the forest when hiking or mountaineering.

[bergenty]

Sweden needs that law because it’s a tiny country where you can’t be outdoors for extended periods for more than 6 months out of the year. The US is huge. People aren’t really missing out if they don’t go on other peoples properties.

[mediascreen]

Sweden is about the size of California with 1/4 of the population.

The notion that we stay inside during half of the year is funny. Normally foreign media loves to write about children sleeping outside in the winter and all-weather forest kindergartens. And then we have all the german tourists that love camping and hiking.

I understand that it seems strange to hike on other peoples property. It's not that I have to go looking for privately owned property, it's that I can't imagine ever having to keep track of land ownership when I am out hiking, camping, skiing or picking berries or mushrooms.

[teddyh]

> Sweden needs that law because it’s a tiny country where you can’t be outdoors for extended periods for more than 6 months out of the year.

Tell me you haven’t even visited Sweden without telling me you haven’t ever been to Sweden.

[nkrisc]

They may not be citing specific law, but instead generally describing the spirit of a broad set of such laws.

[dixie_land]

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"

[altairprime]

Incorrect. Broadly-defined laws that do not hammer out the specifics to the inch are absolutely enforceable, just not with perfect certainty ahead of time. All laws are imprecise, and judges and juries are well able to operate more flexibly than a rigid programming-style logical interpretation (IF position X WITHIN bounds Y-Z THEN arrest) would allow.

[cercatrova]

Yes. In my experience, technical people often assume that laws and judges act like programming commands, when in reality it's more like a case-by-case assessment from the point of view of a reasonable person. Judges are not stupid, they understand what "fair distance" would mean.

[nkrisc]

How so? Specific laws might define specific distances. The spirit of the law is some reasonable distance, and the letter of a specific implementation of such a law might define a distance, which you could demarcate on your property if it were an issue, much like people may demarcate the boundaries of their property if trespass is an issue today.

> fair to me means "not one inch across my property line"

Then the compromise should be that vast wilderness can’t be privately owned.

[exit]

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".

[phpisthebest]

In the US we accomplish this in a lot of location with easements, common easements are for utilities, but easements can be for anything including transit to other parcels.

Easements means the ownership is maintained however access is granted for VERY VERY specific things, (like putting in and maintaining utilities, or transit across ) but can not be used for other things (like camping)

[behringer]

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.

[kurthr]

It depends, but even travel is restricted within 70m of a house… so 250ft?

[teddyh]

It depends on the country.

[bergenty]

If it’s 70m that’s still very close to my house. Americans have a way of pushing the boundaries of every law, we’re a litigious country we follow the letter of the law not the spirit. This will probably result in a chain of homeless people that stay in your backyard for three days and then move over to the next backyard.

[teddyh]

> If it’s 70m that’s still very close

“150 metres in Norway and in all countries far enough that you do not inconvenience anyone and particularly not those in the nearest house.”

— https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Right_to_access_in_the_Nordic...

> This will probably result in a chain of homeless people

Countries with Freedom to Roam laws have homeless people, too. What you describe has not happened.

> stay in your backyard for three days

Again, FUD about “your backyard”. Do you have a 250,000 sq. ft (2.24 hectares, 5.5 acres) back yard? Also, Freedom to Roam laws usually restrict camping to at most two nights, sometimes one night only.

[bergenty]

Yes, I have a 24 acre backyard

[teddyh]

Your usage of the word “backyard” differs from everybody else’s.

[bergenty]

It definitely doesn’t, not according to the dictionary anyway.

As an aside, I think you may be underestimating how large American homes and properties can be, it’s not Europe scale. 5 acres really isn’t all that large.

[gaganyaan]

That's most of a football field away. I could not care less about someone being that close to my house.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> 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 neighbors in particular stand out. One was a new mom who was alone all day and was unsettled with folks hiking past her backyard. The other was a generally cantankerous old guy who felt his right of privacy ought to extend far into land that wasn't his.

Whenever my kids and I hiked the fireline, we made a point of venturing away from the alone-mom's property but didn't extend the same courtesy to the old guy. Though we had a right to walk any part of the tract we wanted, we found respecting alone-mom's concerns was worth the effort.

My moral here is that demanding every last nanometer of rights - while rejecting all notions of consideration - is usually too absolutist to be productive. When conflicting desires are in play, I feel consideration+efficiency leads to more workable agreements.

[prepend]

> One was a new mom who was alone all day and was unsettled with folks hiking past her backyard.

This seems unreasonable to think hikers are a threat to her. It’s nice of you to work to make her feel better but it seems silly for her to think that people are going to break into her house in the middle of their hike. There are many more opportunities for violence and if she wants to worry about things, there’s others.

[HarryHirsch]

More to the point: it's bad policy to normalize her concerns. For the sake of her child we hope that New Mom stops at one and is single. The biggest reason for child abductions is custody disputes and the biggest perpetrators of child sex abuse are older siblings.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> it's bad policy to normalize her concerns. For the sake of her child we hope that New Mom stops at one and is single.

This feels like a pointlessly bitter analysis, one that has drawn unnecessarily harsh conclusions.

At the time, I started weighing her danger assessment but I stopped. New parents tend to suck at risk analysis. I did. Over time I sorted it out. She would too but not that day.

> The biggest reason for child abductions is custody disputes and the biggest perpetrators of child sex abuse are older siblings.

This false danger narrative you're referencing, you're right that it's crap and harmful. However it is mostly driven by LEO & news orgs - both of whom are in the exact position to know better. It isn't reasonable to blame new mothers for the ongoing ineptitude of professionals.

[HarryHirsch]

LEO & news orgs - both of whom are in the exact position to know better

They are not going to stop producing more of the "stranger danger" nonsense, no matter how politely they are asked. You have to start with the consumers if things are ever going to improve.

[WarOnPrivacy]

Regarding LEO, I'm inclined to agree. FBI stats are 2 clicks away so LEO's relentless tendency to portray custodial kidnappings as stranger abductions is at best disingenuous.

The press' issue is one of competency tho. Reporters parrot LEO (gov, corp) PR verbatim, without the least bit of verification, because they are inept. Once reporters get their dopamine hit from public freakout, they are fulfilled. Public freakout leads to ad dollars and that satisfies management.

[googlryas]

You don't know what she thought. And maybe she's worried about other forms of violence too. You also don't know the type of people who walk by.

[runsWphotons]

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

[WarOnPrivacy]

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

Young mom is young and still sorting out how to tell FUD from actual risk. Also, her peer group is at actual risk from men. I can give her room to sort out what's what; meanwhile, the risk from men diminishes with age.

The old man was married and his adult kids where there a lot. I was on the HOA board and talked to him a number of times. He wasn't struggling with any concern for his safety; he resented that his visible area could be (<5x/yr as it was remote) briefly intruded by someone walking by on the other side of the fence.

[mrmanner]

Sweden, one of the usual examples when freedom to roam is discussed, has laws agains home invasion including yards, gardens, etc. since at least 800 years. This has nothing to do with property rights, any home regardless of ownership structure is protected. So camping in someone's backyard could most definitely be illegal even if you were to introduce freedom to roam :)