[gtmitchell]

I’ve always been profoundly jealous of countries with right to roam laws and dream of a day when we might have some thing similar in the US. Here in the west we have so much public land that is effectively closed to access due to wealthy landowners litigating over stupidities like corner crossings so they can monopolize the use of parcels they don’t own.

[justrealist]

> Here in the west we have so much public land that is effectively closed to access due to wealthy landowners litigating over stupidities like corner crossings so they can monopolize the use of parcels they don’t own. reply

I just want to note that even with these annoying carveouts, the US has far more federal land than other European countries. There's not really an equivalent to the vast national forests in the US west in Europe. Those countries are essentially 100% allocated and settled.

[ghaff]

As a practical matter, you may not be able to live in those vast federal lands given the need to eat, but they certainly exist and--to the degree there's car access--you can probably spend a lot of time there if you want to. Probably more than a lot of European countries if you want to.

[bagels]

I'm not saying it's wrong that some of the federal land is inaccessible, but there is so much BLM land that is accessible that it would take you a lifetime to exhaust visiting all of it.

But also, the corner crossing thing is really dumb. Why did the federal government establish a checkerboard pattern? Either way, they should just eminent domain 20 feet off the corners and call it a day.

[bitbckt]

In the US, it’s a legacy of railroad grants.

[crotchfire]

Yes, and the purpose of the checkerboard was so that the railroad could earn money by selling it (the government was basically "paying them in land") without having monopoly control of all the land in a given area (due to the checkerboard pattern).

It basically worked, except in wooded areas where the value came from the timber rather than the land.

[WD-42]

By land mass for sure but by practicality of access unlikely. Near urban or small towns going on a daily walk in the US is usually limited unless you are willing to get shot at because “muh property”

[justrealist]

What towns are you thinking of? It has not been true anywhere I have lived.

[ghaff]

What a weird idea that you can't walk around small towns in the US without getting shot. There may or may not be good walking paths and sidewalks in many areas but you don't have people with a shotgun waiting for someone to set a toe on their property.

[justrealist]

I've also just not lived anywhere without reasonable access to at least a few parks and trails.

[ghaff]

I actually have a pretty nice set of trails that I can access directly from my house. Some is on private land that I don't have legal access to but the idea that someone would just shoot me for walking there (especially without very serious consequences) is laughable. And yes, tons of other trails and parks are very short drives away. I'm not sure walkable access to non-roads/public right-of-ways is commonplace in most parts of the world.

[kleiba]

On the other hand, in the US you can buy a piece of forest, build your own private cabin in it if you want and put a fence around your property to keep everyone else out. In the country I currently live in (Germany), you cannot.

[ejb999]

which part can't you do? Just the fence? or did you mean something else?

Is it really true that nobody in Germany is allowed to fence their property?

[kleiba]

No, you're allowed to fence your property if you're talking about a lot with a house on it. But if it's a piece of forest you can't. Even if you privately own it, access must be guaranteed for the public.

Oh, and you're not allowed to build any cabins either, even if you own that piece of forest.

However, I'm not certain that that's the case everywhere in Germany or only in some states.

[pleasantpeasant]

California has some strict laws about beach access for everyone and you still see beach-side homeowners trying to fence off the public's access to the beach or putting up illegal signs that say "Private Property, No Beach Access" or something like that

[mrkstu]

What’s the difference between a house on a ‘wooded’ lot and a cabin in a forest? Seems an artificial distinction.

[lukan]

It is mainly artificial. A bit like the zoning codes in the US I think.

There is property where you can build a proper house and live there (requirement is, that there is infrastructure, like water and electricity). Then there are gardens, where maybe a small cabin is allowed (but you may not officially live there). And then there is everything else, where you normally cannot build anything.

[kleiba]

I don't think there are any wooded lots in Germany, at least not in the way you're thinking. If your lot is at least a quarter acre big and some 30 feet wide, it counts as a forest.

[Auracle]

So you can’t build a house on a lot that’s over a quarter of an acre?

[Vrondi]

A quarter of an acre of trees is a "forest"? Whoa. As someone who grew up amidst a thousand miles of trees, I shall be laughing for a week to myself over such an idea.

[bitbckt]

Moreover because most of Germany’s “forests” are man-made… are they not mostly “wooded lots”? The distinction maybe arises from green space preservation policies?

[ejb999]

Wow. I guess if you always lived there, you accept it as normal, but being from USA that is hard to relate to.

[kleiba]

Of course you find the way things are where you grow up to be the norm.