While exploring hidden trails I found using 3D imagery, I occasionally come across hunting stands. These are often located beside narrow paths that have an intermediate visibility, and in many cases, neither the path nor the hunting stand appears to be mapped.
Is there an unwritten rule against mapping hunting stands—perhaps for safety reasons or to discourage tourist traffic?
My fist thoughts: If the shooting stands are on purpose built on a hidden place, maybe there is an expectation that they are not mapped.
You can map any object that is visible on the ground as long as mapping certain places or objects are not prohibited by law. Hunting stand are reasonable objects and there is an established tag for it, so just go ahead.
I personally make a difference for the type of hunting stand. If it is a small structure easily removable I do not map it because these small stands are often set up temporarily, but the solid ones (often with a closed room at the top) are well worth mapping.
note that even if local law bans mapping objects it will typically not break OSM rules to map them
For extreme case: even if mapping residence of some supreme leader is illegal (or would cause extrajudicial consequences) it does not mean that mapping it in OSM is in any way breaking any rules.
on the other hand, you should weight legal (and illegal) risks coming with that if you are within reach of given government
For example I would recommend to reconsider breaking law in country ABC by mapping stuff if you visit country ABC, live there or your family lives there. On the other hand some of such laws may be de facto defunct.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not an expert legal advise.
It’s been a topic on the German forum, apparently hunting stands have been targeted by animal rights activists opposed to hunting, and therefore some mappers refrain from adding them, or even delete them.
It’s been a topic on the German forum, apparently hunting stands have been targeted by animal rights activists opposed to hunting, and therefore some mappers refrain from adding them, or even delete them.
The argument hunting stands should not been mapped because militant animal activists might vandalize them in one or the other way is completely nonsense. People who want to destroy some hunting stands don’t need OSM or any other map for that. Just go to the countryside, have a look around and you will see dozens of them scattered all over the landscape.
I’ve come across a few hunting stands myself while hiking and have mapped them when clearly visible. I don’t think there’s a rule against it—as long as they’re visible and accessible from public land, it seems fair game to add. But yeah, if they’re intentionally hidden or on private property, maybe best to skip them out of respect.
Probably that depends on the conditions in the country you are hiking. In Germany for instance most of all forests are “private property”, sometimes belonging to private persons and sometimes to public (state or municipality). In most cases a hiker would not know who is the owner, so it is hard to determine if a hunting stand tucked below a big tree belongs to a private person. That is why I map all clearly visible hunting stands in the countryside as long as they appear to be of permanent nature.
While I agree that mapping hunting stands is just fine (and we have Tag:amenity=hunting stand for that purpose), […]
That is one way to read that sentence. Another interpretation is that we should map them so animal lovers can more easily find and destroy them systematically.
Not that I see much use in such militant actions; many hunting stands here are used by e.g. birdwatchers and tourists and not for actual animal killing (yes, we also have tag Tag:leisure=bird_hide - OpenStreetMap Wiki, but it is often hard to say which one is which, and which serve both).
Well, they don’t need it. Just like the militaries do not need to use OSM to find targets (yet it was shown that they do use it occasionally).
There is no restriction on OSM usage, for the better IMHO (e.g. even if there were copyright license restrictions, even sensible ones like “you’re not allowed not use OSM to stalk and kill your ex, or for war purposes etc.”, it would only discourage legitimate use, as those willing to break criminal law won’t be deterred by the though that they’ll also be breaking copyright law)
Anyway the idea of noting the issue is not really all that ridiculous IMHO, as we for example note caveats about mapping Tag:natural=birds_nest - OpenStreetMap Wiki also due to concerns of criminal activities (e.g. poaching of endangered species) and related issues.
Going slightly offtopic here, but if they are private property, how does a non-authorized person even finds themselves in such private forest to be able to see (and map) the hunting stands? Or has the owner designated something like access=permissive on their land?
Luckily, private property of a forest, meadow or unused field does not imply any access restrictions for pedestrians. There is a right of way for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders on all highway=track and highway=path in the forest and the countryside. It is limited to tracks for cycling/riding in some states. It is limited for all in most nature reserves or if there is a very good reason. But it is a constitutional right of each human in Bavaria. Pedestrians may walk through all forests off-path through forests and meadows with mowed grass outside nature reserves.
The main purpose of these stands is hunting for sure. They cost some money (plus effort to put them up) which no hunter would spend to primarily provide a nice place for birdwatching or private rendezvous.
There are some voluntarily mapping restrictions to protect endagered species or people needing special protection - you don’t want to compare such objects to a hunting stand, do you?
Interesting, can you be more specific? I’ve searched that wiki page for both “Freedom” and “roam” but found no matches. I’ve also tried looking for “forest”, but while there are some matches about “forestry”, they do not specifically seem to mention how to handle access in private forests?
I would think the similar situation is in Croatia (but have not delved into researching applicable laws in depth). Owner of private property/land may restrict access (actually, AFAICT it may even be restricted by default); in any case it is either access=private or maybe access=permissive and notaccess=yes.
While there are some exceptions where owner must allow access - e.g. “pravo služnosti” might be kind of “right of way”; but it is very limited in scope (i.e. enclave case - only when another owner cannot physically enter their property without crossing over yours), and even there owner can designate which parts may be used for such traversals, and which may not.
I’m sure you wanted to add some conditional there? e.g. “… in Germany”? Because I think that this claim of “pedestrian can go anywhere regardless of who owns the land” does not apply worldwide.
Perhaps, I’m no expert - as I noted I often have difficulty distinguishing between amenity=hunting_stand and leisure=bird_hide (esp. as the same thing itself is often used for both, depending on the season), and over here at least many are not paid for by private hunting clubs, but e.g. by nature reserve park in which they are situated, or other ways.
You may have to obtain special permits depending on location, and there are various restrictions and requirements what you must do (for maintenance of private forest too - e.g. you are not even allowed to fall trees at will in forest which is on your private land, you must get special appraisal which trees may be fallen and which you may not, and you must pay for it. Yeah it sounds strange that you may not just do with your “private property” as you wish [1])
There are also restrictions on mapping military installations. Whether any of those are fully voluntary or enforced by some law is probably dependent on jurisdiction. E.g. over here you might end up in jail just by publishing certain maps (or at least you could be few decades back, I’ve not not checked recently).
but than again there are other restrictions on private property here - e.g. you may not buy a house and use it to store electronic waste either ↩︎
Wikipedia has a bit of detail about it. What rights people have vary hugely by region. In some places there is a “general approval” but with specific provisions; in others it is the other way around. As an example, in England and Wales there’s “right to roam” only in very specific areas and with some time exceptions. I’ve used that to indicate why foot access is yes in some areas, but such usage is pretty rare.
I’ve also tried looking for “forest”, but while there are some matches about “forestry”, they do not specifically seem to mention how to handle access in private forests?
we generally do not “handle access” on areas, access tagging is most limited to highways, barriers and maybe parking.
In freedom to roam countries, ownership of meadows or forests doesn’t matter for the sake of accessibility and the owner may not typically restrict access even if they like to
Most hunting stands I’ve seen tend to be catalog/store bought and have a construction quality somewhere between “folding card table” and “slightly sturdier than average disposable Walmart camping chair”. If it’s not that, then tends to be an improvised structure not dissimilar to a kid-built fort.
Permanence comes to mind as being a factor against mapping them, as it’s more likely the stand will be damaged beyond usability or removed prior to the next time someone with the inclination to map all the things is through the area.
… could surely be a reason to go ahead