|
|
|
|
|
by lisp-pornstar
1171 days ago
|
|
That's not selfish, GRs are sometimes crossing natural park in which nature and wilderness related laws are enforced, there are people that can sue you if you smoke a cigarette/walk in certain areas/throw some trash at the ground/camp in les calanques de marseille for example (the south of france is highly inflammable during summer). In order to maintain the local biodiversity, keep a minor impact of the local wilderness of these places (endangered species often), some money has to be raised, experts have to be paid to help decisions (should a trail be modified for X reasons related to what I said supra, should some trees be cut down for security reasons, should some security lanes be created to prevent fires etc...), which then requires the intervention of professionals to apply these decisions.
You also have to pay "rangers" sometimes (I don't know of many parks of france, i'm mainly talking about calanques and cevennes). When I go climbing I have to buy a local guide documenting all the historical climbing spots; the persons that sells the guide are the one that equipped and maintened these historical routes : is it selfishness ? |
|
To start with, the official law enforcement, and park maintenance is managed and facilitated by the state, payed by the tax payers.
Secondly, the associations like the one mentioned above, although making use of the resources of their members, are in part being bankrolled by the state. So, again, payed with tax payers' money.
Thirdly, the association, labelled an association of public benefit, should fit the following definition: "Elle n'exerce pas d'activité lucrative. Sa gestion est désintéressée. Elle ne fonctionne pas au profit d'un cercle restreint de personnes", or, after loosely translated: 1) It should not be profit driven 2) Its management should be selfless 3) It should not function at the benefit of only a restricted group of people.
And it this case, it sure sounds like point 2 and 3 are put in doubt with their patent and intellectual property fighting nonsense barring open maps from including their paths.
Beyond a recognition for the time and effort invested in the maintaining of the markings on the hiking trails they trace, it really looks like a disproportionate and misplaced application of intellectual property rights.
And taking into account that a lot of tax payers' money is making the entire endeavour possible, it would make some sense to return a bit of that value back to the tax payers by making the markings available for free in openly accessible maps.