harahu (2021-06-09 07:53:09+00:00): Given a complaint has been issued, I feel obliged to help you resolve the matter to the best of my abilities. Although it is not clear which specific trail the complainant is referring to, I am responsible for most trails on the mountain, so I am probably the person to get in touch with anyway. I am willing to keep up the dialogue here on this changeset, or we can move to a better suited platform if you wish.

First, a bit about my background. I would consider myself semi-local to the area. I grew up in the nearby village of Valestrandsfossen (to the south), and have walked most of these paths myself. I haven't lived there for the last ten years, but I have family and friends there, so I visit multiple times a year.

Now, addressing the claims in the complaint. They seem to me to be an inaccurate representation of Norwegian law, to the point where it is unclear whether the complainant has a point or not. Roughly speaking, the law in question divides land into two categories:

Utmark (roughly translated: "Uncultivated land")
In law, this is defined as "everything that isn't considered cultivated land", but more or less covers marshland, forests, shrub land, mountains and the like. This category of land comes with an extensive right to roam, including camping for shorter periods of time, as long as you leave no trace and generally behave yourself. I could go into more detail, but this doesn't seem relevant to the case.

Innmark (roughly translated: "Cultivated land")
This category is defined as courtyards, gardens, cultivated fields, industrial areas, and similar. That is, land with a significant human footprint. This is the category of land I assume that the complainant is referring to when mentioning "farms".
This category offers less access rights than the previous category, e.g. camping on cultivated land is forbidden unless permission is obtained from the land owner. But unlike what the complaint is implying, there are still extensive access rights to consider for cultivated land, which I will cover.

The law deals with two different forms of access to cultivated land; on road and off road access. Off road access (e.g. crossing crop fields outside a clear path or road), is allowed in the period 15th of october to 29th of april, as long as the ground is frozen and/or covered in snow. On road access over private land is also allowed, all year around, under certain conditions. The owner is allowed to ban motorised traffic on private roads, but access by foot, bicycle or horse is explicitly allowed. The owner is also allowed to ban access by bicycle or horse on more "informal" paths, as seems to be the case here, but even on informal paths you have unconditional access rights, as long as you travel by foot. (Hence the argument that "These paths are not marked and not in official maps" is not relevant.)

I say unconditional, but that isn't entirely true. There are still scenarios that might allow the owner to block access, but it is unclear from the complaint whether those scenarios are relevant here. I will summarise them here, but the details are available at this link https://lovdata.no/lov/1957-06-28-16/§3a:

1. Passage can be banned on roads or paths that go through someone's garden or courtyard (i.e. where it would cause significant nuisance). So, for instance, a stereotypical driveway would not imply access rights, but a private road that does not pass though someone's garden would not be problematic. In most cases, though, this shouldn't be too hard to judge from aerial imagery.
2. The municipality can issue a ban on access.
3. The owner can ban access if access would result in "significant damage".

The complainant would have to make a strong case for one of the exceptions above, which they don't seem to be doing. All the information I summarised above is available in the link I provided, so it would make sense to reference that.