Talk:Freedom to roam

message: Do these countries not have the right of public access?  Right now, the article implies that they do not, but it isn't stated explicitly.
:I have a vague memory of hearing on Danish radio last Summer (2004) that they had been trying right of public access locally somewhere in Denmark, that it went fine and were now going to extend the experiment to other places. Does someone know? --Erik J 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However it is not a tradition there, yet 193.65.112.51 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark/Iceland 

message: Do we really need a citation specifically for Scotland having greater access rights than England and Wales? Finding a citation for such an explicit comparison is going to be tricky, and we've now got citations for each of the relevant acts which I think is enough. --VinceBowdren 09:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: The information in this article is not correct with respect to Allemansrätten in Sweden. In Sweden, it does cover the right to make a fire, if this can be done safely, and there are no restrictions on
commercial activities such as picking berries for commercial purposes, as long as they do not cause any harm. Spakoj 18:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Sweden 

message: Furthermore, everyman's right does not include commercial exploitation of the land. For example, getting immigrant workers to pick berries is legal only with the landowner's permit. 
This sentence is not correct about the jokamiehenoikeus in Finland. You can also pick berries and mushroom in commercial way. Since it is not true in Finland or in Sweden, i suggest removal of the sentence. 193.65.112.51 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Finland 

message: This article begins with stating that this "convention" is particular to the Nordic countries (in adition to some other places). I see Madagaskar has been stapled on the end of the intro. But then the history section seem to be mostly describing UK conditions and perspectives. This article started out as an attemt to describe the Nordic allemannsrett, but has been twisted by several passers-by (including me). Ideally it should have a general introduction section on the Nordic tradition followed by descriptions of the spesifics in each country and then a description of similar conventions in other parts of the world. Inge 15:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see several people wanted to improve this article. Doing it at the same time was a bit inconvenient though :). I have made some general changes and added a section on Norway. I feel if each country is to get an equally long bit they will repeat each other. I went in such detail on Norway because if we are to describe this topic in detail it is best to let the reader know where the spesific information is relevant. Other country sections should show their differences, but not re list rules that are the same as in Norway. Inge 20:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Yes Inge is correct; the topic has worldwide significance. For that reason i propose a title change of the article. The name Freedom to roam seems like a better article title.  First of all its the only term commonly used in the United Kingdom. Secondly it is far more used in the literature (roughly 1000 time more google hits than present name). Thirdly it is not so much of a mouthful. And fourthly, isnt the topic broader than wilderness? Joan-of-arc 02:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Right to Roam is a more commonly used term in the UK isn't it? --VinceBowdren 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, right to roam is common in the UK but i think joan of arc's idea is a good one.  Freedom to roam gives very high google hits and is probably the most NPOV term and also doesnt single out one country's name for the phenomenon.  I support the name change to Freedom to roam. Anlace 14:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but since the name Freedom to roam is already a redirect we have to do this the formal way with a vote and then get an administrator to move the article for us. Otherwise I gather the article history and probably some other things will get messed up.Inge 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name needs to be revisited

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
* Support mostly because I don't like the present name and its use of the word wilderness. Inge 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I am sorry to bring up the naming question again, but this article should be named "Law of Commons". The name allemansrätten is an alteration of allmänningsrätten, i.e. the "Law of Commons. Such laws exist and existed in England and other countries.--Berig 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "Law of Commons" would be a very good name. In English law, a common is something quite different; it is a distinct piece of property which has specific rights attached to it (limited to specific people), rather than a set of rights which apply to all property of a certain type, applicable to all people. --VinceBowdren 10:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: concur with vincebowdren. Anlace 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: Do we have any sources to the influence of feudalism in the UK (and other countries) in establishing strong property rights and preventing open access? Or could it have been the enclosures process of the 18th and 19th centuries? Without sources, the historical statements in the article are little more than speculation. --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Removing 'feudalism' language. --macrakis (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feudalism? 

message: I'm a bit confused about the new paragraph about Belarus - it says that countryside is publicly owned, but doesn't say anything about access rights. Anybody know enough russian to read the reference, or happen to know any more about it? --VinceBowdren (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Text about access rights to forest added.  More difficult to document right to roam on agricultural land.  It's frequently used for walking and off-road cycling routes, but access rights may not be codified. --John.roseman (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belarus 

message: :Angling interests successfully lobbied for the exclusion of rivers in England and Wales from CROW, leaving other river users such as swimmers and canoeists with restricted access to less than 2% of navigable water.
This is ambiguous - is access to less 2% of navigable water restricted (so the other >98% is accessible), or is restricted access granted to less than 2% (so the other >98% is inaccessible)? Hairy Dude (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: Am I right in thinking that freedom to roam is normally allowed on Canadian Crown land? As well what about the USA -- do they have the equivalent of Crown Land? 
Also the article ignores much of the world (Australia I note also has Crown Land). Rwood128 (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not right to think that, no. There is no "right to roam" anywhere in Canada. 70.29.99.120 (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  North America? 

message: It seems a bit one sided to mention the problems with Malagasy rainforest without also mentioning the benefits of traditional management. For instance 
Fire Over Ahwahnee: John Muir and the Decline of Yosemite
And of course the Malagasy example is one of many issues like that though a particularly tragic one I agree.
Hope this helps. Robert Walker (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of husbandry by traditional dwellers

message: I just ran into an issue when searching. A "song" title Freedom to Roam (later creation date) has the same title name with just a capitalization difference. Otr500 (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation issue 

message: The United States section does not mention the word "trespass". This seems odd considering the articles on "invitee" and "licensee" both refer to it as a third category of visitor. Woodshed (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgive us 

message: It starts out by saying, "the right of the public to do this thing".
In other words "let me tell you want (my) completely (made up) factual position on this subject is called".
OK, maybe it is called that, but that doesn't make it true.
TOO PREACHY. I don't need individuals disguised as "the wiki community" to stealth push their opinion about rights down my throat.
I don't think people should be allowed to just walk all over my property. I'm not sure how someone else's view is any better.
174.109.186.3 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  needs to be de-editorialized 

message: "Regardless of who owns the land, freshwater fishing activities may only be conducted with the permission of the landowner or by those in possession of a fishing licence"
This sentence doesn't make any sense. Regardless of who owns the land, but only with the permission of the landowner? How is that supposed to work?
--93.212.236.146 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A little lost in translation perhaps. Hopefully it is now clearer.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishy sentence 

message: This article has become a laundry list of countries with no "right to roam". Why are there entries for the US, Canada, Australia and the UK? There is no such right in any of these countries, and trying to re-cast privileges accorded by the Crown/State with "rights" is disingenuous. This article needs to be scrubbed by an editor with the guts (and probably, the political clout within Wikipedia...as if that should even fuckin' matter!) to do so and make it stick. 70.29.99.120 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Many lists like this and other ones keeps extending whether there are reliable sources relevant to actual subject or not. Try improving article yourself, article can be edited by you. My Lord (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add, the OP has a point, but not in respect of the UK inasmuch as it includes Scotland, which certainly does have a genuine right to roam.Grinner (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and the kitchen sink! 

message: I hate Philoserf to be critical re the "B" assessment, but this article is still tagged with several banners asking for improvement. Rwood128 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , not a problem. To C it is. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: The arcticle states: "Today, the right to roam has survived in perhaps its purest form in Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden." As one possible explanation it says that feudalism and serfdom were not established in those five countries. In this respect Estonia actually is an exception: serfdom was the norm there prior and after the Swedish rule. See e.g. Serfs and the Market: Second Serfdom and the East-West goods exchange, 1579-1857 I suggest the explanation be removed or at least made more precise by including only the four Nordic Countries mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stringme2 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serfdom in Estonia 

message: Re the "World-wide View" banner, I have tried in vain to find information for Asia in particular, but with no luck. I suspect, however, that in totalitarian countries, including Russia and China, the right doesn't exist and that in many jungles and deserts, including the Sahara there is probably no real access problem. Does anyone have any information re, say India, Thailand, South America, The Philippines, Japan, Africa, or any country not mentioned in the current article? Rwood128 (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that this "right" seems to be a limited cultural phenomenon of Northern Europe, with limited rights only in other English speaking countries, I suggest that the "world-wide" banner is not appropriate in this context, and I will remove it unless anyone objects. I suspect that I may in fact have added it! Freedom to roam in certain uninhabited places, such as deserts and jungles, is something quite different. Rwood128 (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Northern Europe? 

message: I'm interested if anyone found information for South America.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bplotkin (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  South America 

message: As a resident of southern Ontario, Canada, (aka, the place where approximately every Canadian lives). The Canada section is misleading.
Yes, much of Canada/Ontario is technically Crown Land, and much of this crown land allows freedom to roam, but all of this land is a 6-12+ hour drive from where anyone lives.
All of the free access land is so far away from the nearest police station and everyone who might want to use it that if you can get their (a big if) the legality of what you do their is sort of irrelevant. I am sure 99% of the UK public access land is in UK owned Antarctica, but it is so inaccessible that this is irrelevant. Wisnoskij (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: that  could make this clearer. , please be bold and make the changes that you would like to see.  — Freoh 21:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada - Accessibility to Public Land 

message: The Finnish topic seems a bit inconsistent at the moment. It makes the distinction of including an explicitly gender neutral version of "jokamiehenoikeus", that at least I, as a native Finn have never heard before (jokaisenoikeus), yet the Swedish term of the Finnish "jokamiehenoikeus", "allemansrätten" is translated as (lit.) "everyone's right", even though it isn't as explicitly gender neutral. 2001:708:30:10E0:B457:D263:AB97:584C (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish topic 

message: We have right of way from the Atlantic ocean to the high tide mark as beaches in Nova Scotia are crown land https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/government/province-house/to-hell-and-back/ 170.10.254.48 (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada other provinces