Talk:Right to access in the Nordic countries
This should be moved to Norway/Right to access or expanded to include other countries which have this concept. -(WT-en) phma 09:01, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)
I agree, and the phrase "Right to access" is kinda confusing-- is that a common term somewhere? (WT-en) Majnoona 10:59, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)
- I agree too, though consolidating here does create a redundancy problem, sinces all of the scandinavian countries have laws like this (it's also a feature of english common law, though it's been eroded a bit over the years). Still redundancy is better than finding missing the information becuase you can't click the link from the Norway page which you printed out and put in your backpack.. ;) -- (WT-en) Mark 11:06, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)
Needs some editing. It really looks like a discussion on some cases, for example: If 'out of the way' sounds harsh... It's its own paragraph that refers to a paragraph two paragraphs above. /PutBoy
The page says to "..close gates even if you found them open..". Well, here in Australia, we say, " leave gates as you find them.." which seems more logical, if you don't want to annoy the farmer who left it open for his animals' convenience ! Clarification, anyone ? 220.127.116.11 22:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
- I think the Australian way is the way to go here also, as reflected in the current wording. --LPfi (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sections that need some work
I think apart from some wording in the lede, the "Quirks" section and the "walking and passing" section could need some attention, up to and including throwing out the old text and writing new text from scratch and/or changing headlines. Furthermore, there are a couple of dead links that should either be removed period or be replaced by their living equivalent. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, we are steadily getting better on the SEO front here, both through dilution (the other site has 60% copied content while we have 30% on this article) and through new better wording. But the "quirks" section (maybe we should think about a new headline?) still contains an awful lot of copied content. To be precise the entirety of the following "Along many popular tourist roads and spots, there are "no camping" signs. These are there to avoid a heavy impact on areas which are particularly popular, and should be respected. Just go a few hundred meters further, make sure you're out of the way, and you're OK.
Although camping vans are OK, it is generally, if usually silently, frowned upon just parking them in a parking area and staying overnight. Obviously mountains and other extreme areas are paved as little as possible. Parking areas are therefore deliberately a scarce resource, and should be used only for parking, not for camping. If you're using a camping van, use paid campsites.
Note that around some cabins in the more popular mountain regions such as Jotunheimen in Norway, extra limitations have been set up which prohibit tenting up to 2 km from the cabins. This is because campers have used sanitary facilities in the cabins without paying. Many Norwegians believe that these limitations are illegal and so blatantly ignore them (and love to be taken to court to have it struck down). They have not yet been tested in court, however, and as a foreigner you might not want to argue about it, so you might want to comply. If you do camp, don't use the facilities of nearby huts without paying the dues. In short: around most cabins you can camp as close as you want (or in a designated area) by paying a small fee – you then also get access to the cabin's facilities. If you don't want to pay, you'll have to go 150 m away. Around some cabins you will have to go even farther away."
- Either we nuke it and write it anew from scratch or we decide it is so great that we keep it even despite the penalty, because I fear lateral ain't gonna cut it here. Or what do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- As I have said elsewhere before, I think we should avoid rewriting for the sake of rewriting, and especially if we cannot come up with something that is an improvement. The text here is not necessarily great, but as it is mostly about Norway (I believe the article was about Norway only in the beginning), I am not going to write it again after nuking, but it could be reworded. --LPfi (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not "for the sake of rewriting" it has two very well defined objectives that must be weighed according to each individual case. One is Search Engine considerations and the other is whether our articles are up to date. It seems to me that if no deliberate effort is put into it, the old stuff gets slowly diluted (sometimes through adding a paragraph with more information, sometimes through a line here or there partially contradicting other wordings) but we as a wiki are reluctant to throw out old text, even if it would be beneficial in some cases. I think at the very least this text could be expanded to focus on places other than Norway Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- A search on "freedom to roam" or "right to access" and "Norway" or "Norway Sweden" gives me this article as second to fifth. If that is the general score, we need not worry about SEO for this article. If it is much worse for others, then I should be very worried about how much info I have let leak to Google. --LPfi (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Using duckduckgo and searching "right to access", that other site is number one and we are not even on the first couple of pages. I don't know the amount of data this service collects, but yes, you should be worried about what google knows about you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It is OK to make a camp fire, or maybe not in Norway
It says: “It is OK to make a camp fire, but you must not cut any trees”. I Norway the law: Forskrift om brannforebygging have some important exceptions in § 3 (translated):
- General requirements for care
- Everyone is obliged to exercise caution in carrying out activities that may lead to fire.
- It is forbidden to fire or treat flammable objects outdoors under such conditions or in such a way that it may lead to fire. Completed fire must not be left until it is completely extinguished.
- During the period from 15 April to 15 September, it is forbidden to fire in or near forests and other land without permission from the municipality. Local government may, by local regulations, waive this prohibition if local circumstances so warrant. It is nevertheless allowed to make fire where it obviously can not cause fire.
- If the fire hazard is particularly large beyond the period mentioned in the third paragraph, the municipality may propose to fire or treat fire-hazardous objects outdoors in certain areas. The prohibition may be adopted as a regulation without prior notice and notice pursuant to section 37, second paragraph, and section 38, first paragraph, letter c). The municipality shall ensure that the prohibition is generally known on the spot in question.
A guidance to thise paragraph is fundt her Forbud mot å brenne bål i skog og mark where is says:
- The regulation opens for the enjoyment of the bonfire also when there is no snow on the ground. Section 3 says "It is nevertheless allowed to make fire where it obviously can not cause fire". The exception applies, for example, to established places for bonfires and other places that are completely safe. Are you in doubt, it's better to stand over the bonfires.
One shuld be extremely careful, the best is perhaps to only make a camp fire when it's raining?
It also says in the article: “... but you must not cut any trees.” I Norway, nobody will care if you break some dry branches for a bonfire, barely enough on private land. As far as I know, it is only in nature reserves that it is forbidden to break, or pick up branches on the ground, or disturb any natural processes. I don't know the laws in the other Scandinavian countries in thise filds.
- OK, I have missed the "og annen utmark" (above translated as "other land"). With that wording forests and woods have no special status, which I have been told they have. Non-utmark land is hardly relevant for travellers, as there you would anyway ask the locals. I changed the article accordingly, but have made a mess of the wording. Is it correct now? Feel free to change the wording or improve the text in other ways.
- In Hiking in the Nordic countries#Fire the wording is "In Norway, making a fire is generally forbidden from 15 April to 15 September, except at generously safe distance from forest, buildings and other flammable material or on designated sites approved by the fire department." I suppose that is how hikers interpret the law. I do not know whether such an interpretation is due to municipalities granting rights, or just people ignoring the letter of the law.
- About cutting trees: I think the wording "Also leave aesthetically or ecologically valuable dead logs alone. Use twigs on the ground and similar instead" clearly hints on quite some leeway for own judgement. I hesitate to give definite advice, as what I would like people to do varies a lot depending on how many people are using the place on one hand and how special the environment is on the other – and the advice I'd give varies depending on how much I trust the judgement of people getting my advice.