TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Wyoming corner crossing case

101 点作者 wlkr超过 2 年前

18 条评论

Kon-Peki超过 2 年前
This is fascinating :)<p>&gt; North and South Dakota define section lines as a public right of way, which seems to allow corner crossing or at least access to landlocked public lands.<p>Here in Illinois, my rear property line is a section line, and a neighbor down the street has the intersection of that section line with another; interestingly it is not on his property line (this is land that was sold by the federal government in 40 acre square quarters of a quarter, but farmers had subdivided and consolidated things over the years). But anyway, in his yard is a stone survey marker showing the intersection point, and it has &quot;ROW&quot; engraved on it. It lends credence to this concept being common historically.
davidw超过 2 年前
That checkerboard pattern is very visible on satellite imagery of western Oregon, where forest management changes between the public and private lots:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;@43.8725018,-123.0628546,81558m&#x2F;...</a>
评论 #33861608 未加载
entrylevel超过 2 年前
I&#x27;m really surprised that this hasn&#x27;t been settled. It seems unjust that you can surround a piece of public land--or someone else&#x27;s land--with your private land and deny access to it.<p>I remember Disney was successfully sued to allow access for the Hilton Orlando Bonnet Creek resort because Disney owned all the land that would provide access to it and didn&#x27;t want to allow it.
评论 #33862410 未加载
评论 #33861842 未加载
IncRnd超过 2 年前
Despite how any of us want things to be, this was the printed statement from Wyoming BLM. [1] Presumably, these hunters already knew this.<p><pre><code> What does the law say with regard to corner crossing? There is no specific state or federal laws regarding corner crossings. Corner crossings in the checkerboard land pattern area or elsewhere are not considered legal public access. </code></pre> [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.blm.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;documents&#x2F;files&#x2F;Program_Recreation_BLM%20WY%20Access%20Guide.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.blm.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;default&#x2F;files&#x2F;documents&#x2F;files&#x2F;Prog...</a>
exhilaration超过 2 年前
Previously discussed (last week): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33753467" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33753467</a>
评论 #33861536 未加载
saboot超过 2 年前
Id like to know why specifically the officers changed their mind the third time.<p>I can easily take a guess for the reason though.
评论 #33861454 未加载
评论 #33861441 未加载
rippercushions超过 2 年前
&gt; <i>The federal government regulates airspace 500 feet and above the land surface, leaving the states to decide what happens below. Wyoming statute 10-4-302 states that ownership of the space above private land is vested in the owners below, subject to the right of flight.</i><p>So if you have a FAA-approved helicopter&#x2F;giant drone&#x2F;equivalent and comply with their regulations, you can legally hop from one checkerboard to another, as long as each hop goes above 500 feet? (Assuming that national park regulations allow you to land on the ground with your aircraft, which is sadly probably not the case.)
评论 #33862038 未加载
评论 #33861552 未加载
failbuffer超过 2 年前
De minimis non curat lex - the law does not deal in trifles. Unless a multi-millionaire pharmaceutical businessman wants to make life difficult for someone, apparently.<p>It&#x27;s silly to see the law chewing up so much time and talent for a prosecution so at odds with the public interest.
评论 #33862658 未加载
评论 #33861252 未加载
mattlondon超过 2 年前
Why don&#x27;t the land owners just put up a fence if they are so worried? Doesn&#x27;t need to go the whole length, just like 1 or 2 meters at the corners, then there is no argument about if someone&#x27;s shoulders went on your land or not.
GauntletWizard超过 2 年前
This is so obviously a place where existing laws around easements should apply that it&#x27;s laughable that it&#x27;s made it this far. Someone can&#x27;t block your access to your house by buying up your neighbors properties.
评论 #33860905 未加载
评论 #33861471 未加载
评论 #33860906 未加载
josh_fyi超过 2 年前
Why don&#x27;t private landowners firmly set two tall metal poles, covered with razor wire, 2 inches from the corner?<p>I support public right of way, but it seems a landowner who wants to de facto seize the public land could do that.
评论 #33864953 未加载
sc68cal超过 2 年前
This is basically the same issue as public access to California beaches, where wealthy landowners attempt to block public access to the commons and turn it into private property.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2015&#x2F;oct&#x2F;02&#x2F;california-wealthy-public-beaches-private-security" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;us-news&#x2F;2015&#x2F;oct&#x2F;02&#x2F;california-w...</a>
评论 #33860873 未加载
评论 #33861461 未加载
评论 #33861396 未加载
评论 #33862416 未加载
pintxo超过 2 年前
Sounds like the core question is if „hovering“ any body part over private land is considered trespassing?<p>As obviously (on flat land without obstacles) one can step from one square into the diagonal square without setting foot on either the adjacent squares.
PostOnce超过 2 年前
In some countries, it&#x27;s not a problem: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Freedom_to_roam" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Freedom_to_roam</a>
评论 #33861145 未加载
评论 #33860918 未加载
twelve40超过 2 年前
That pharma guy is an unbelievable douchebag. Investing his own, his crew&#x27;s and the cops time (they have nothing better to do?) into ... what exactly?
评论 #33862673 未加载
boltzmann-brain超过 2 年前
&gt; The legality of stepping from one public parcel to another across a shared corner is still a legal gray area
chrisbrandow超过 2 年前
Idiotic. Profoundly stupid.
fastball超过 2 年前
Why are these public land parcels in a checkerboard anyway? Doesn&#x27;t it make way more sense to have continuous pieces of land for administration &#x2F; etc?
评论 #33861513 未加载