Request for assistance from the Norwegian community in the resolution of a mapping dispute

Communities Norge (Norway)
, , , ,
83

In reverse order:

Yes, I fully admit that my drawing is lacking, and most importantly, of dubious legal validity for the reasons you state.
I mean it more as a matter of “yeah, this is pretty close to the houses”.
To clarify the ambiguity I made there: The image is not an accurate map of a “private zone”, and I think it would be hard to make one.

Yes, you have presented your case clearly, and have shown your evidence. The other side has been invited to show their evidence, and we have yet to see them post anything. That should count for something.

But, I do know people, both OSM contributors and others who have either walked or observed the path within the last six months.

That’s surveys! Good enough for me, to answer your “I’d be interested to hear whether that changes your perspective.” I do not care strongly if they are house owners or relatives.

I change my stance to 1) The path exists and should therefore be mapped with highway=path. It should have a low trail_visibility since it doesn’t appear to be very prominent, and be tagged as informal 2) I still think access is still muddy, and can’t see how anyone would be able to make a conclusive argument either way.

1 Like
84

In that case, are you possibly able to ask your in-laws to please go here & take some current photos, so we can all see what is actually on-the-ground?

Geo-referenced if possible, or a short 360° video from the road to show where houses are in relation to the “start of the path” through the boat parking area, together with something of the path itself, assuming that it’s actually still visible?

85

Sure, pictures would be nice for surface, trail_visibility, sac_scale and actual geometry, but if they have recently been there (? Or is it some other people who have been there recently?), surely just the statement of the observation is enough? It’s not like it is standing against any stronger evidence.

And if stronger evidence, like pictures shows up, surely we don’t care about who takes the pictures?

86

They live approximately 40km away, as the car drives, so it’s not exactly a small ask. They’re also away from home at the moment. I think it would be better if this is done either by @qwertet or someone else who wouldn’t have to go out of their way to do so. How do you feel about doing so @Vegard_Engen?

87

Thanks! When you said “not far”, I assumed you meant close by!

88

All is relative. I live approximately 500 km away :crazy_face:

89

Because it would prove the current existence, or otherwise, of the path.

& no, it doesn’t really matter who takes them, but I would prefer an independent viewpoint.

90

That’s alright - I’m only ~15000k further than you!

91

It’s a common distance problem in Norway. I’m the sole mapper in a ~50km radius, and nobody physically on the ground is ever going to challenge anything I draw :confused:

92

I’m aligned with you here.

I agree, to some extent. I recognize that there is still some “formal” doubt. I am making the argument, though, that we as a community should have as a policy that this doubt should come in favor of public access while this doubt is resolved.

The reason being that its the owners who have the means to resolve this doubt, and there needs to be some incentive for them to do so.

93

My counterpart shared a brochure from 2023, made by the local trekking association, that explicitly talks about the path. See:

In my opinion that is a fairly independent source. It’s not photos, but it is something.

94

Do any of the included maps cover this area?

95

Yes and no. Have a look at page 55. But that map only shows the route the brochure is recommending, nothing else.

If you’re interested in official maps, you should look at https://norgeskart.no/. Those are the official maps of the Norwegian Mapping Authority. There the path is drawn in its entirety when zoomed out. When zooming in you’ll find that it is drawn up to, but not past the property boundary. That is, the last few meters are missing. I’d make the case, though, that this is no cul-de-sac, and that the strava data show that people who start on the trail also exit from it on the other side.

96

There are restrictions in the forum, so can’t post.

97

as a new user you can upload one picture per post.

98

and only three responses per topic

99

Dette er feil, stien er ikke tegnet ut til veien, det blir seende slik ut pga. det blir for unøyaktig ved utsoming. Trodde at du skjønte såpass.

100

I was trying not to get involved in this, as I am too partial to provide neutral insight to the OSM community.

But so is the land owners, they have their own set of interests.

Pictures can be made to show whatever you want. Noone could trust that pictures I could provide is not taken a few years ago, and any pictures the land owners give can be taken from favourable angles, supporting their claim.

As an interested party, I support this being done in a way that all interested parties can agree on is neutral evidence.

101

Kommunens og interesseorganisasjoners tilrettelegging av stier i området, informasjonstavler, informasjonsbrosjyrer, svar fra Øygarden Kommune, reguleringsplaner og lovverk for øvrig til sammen formidler fast og langvarig forvaltningspraksis for området, og i det er implisitt at nevnte areal av eiendommene er innmark. Det vil derfor være implisitt hvor det ikke er tillatt å gå ved at en kommune har opplyst om hvor det er tillat å gå.
Kommunens reguleringsplaner tilsier at området er innmark.
Kommunens og andre interesseorganisasjoners informasjon om stier i området tilsier at området er innmark og skal ikke ferdes på.
Friluftslovens definisjoner og rettspraksis tilsier at området er innmark og skal ikke ferdes på.
Friluftsloven gir grunneier rett til å bestemme over sin egen eiendom i dette tilfellet.
Friluftsloven gir rett til å bortvise folk fra eiendommen.
Grunneiers utnyttelse av eiendommen tilsier at det er innmark og skal ikke ferdes på.
Mer nøytrale «bevis» får du ikke.

Men de fleste velger å overse disse, og argumenterer med; «Men jeg vil jeg»

Og så kan hver enkelt velge å like fakta som er representert eller ikke.
Og noen naboer har valgt å ikke like det, og velger å gå der fordi, slik jeg nå har forstått det, blir for langt for dem å benytte tilrettelagte stier i området selv om målet deres er å gå tur.
De naboene som tar seg til rette har også en veldig god anledning til å legge til rette på egen eiendom for å gå ut i utmark, som f.eks Digernes som var nevnt ved navn, fordi disse eiendommene gjerne grenser til utmark. Men det gidder de heller ikke. Da foretrekker de heller å ta seg til rette på annens eiendom.

Her inne kan det diskuteres til det uendelige frem og tilbake og det vil aldri komme noen enighet. Og med de begrensninger som ligger i forumet er det også håpløst å fortsette diskusjonen.
Det som er 100% sikkert er at den stien over privat eiendom kommer til å bli fjernet fra OSM kartdata hver gang den legges inn. Som en tidlig i diskusjonen nevnte; dette er ingen rettssak.

Det kommer ingen flere argumenter fra meg her inne nå. Men hvis noen av naboene ønsker å komme og ta en prat rundt dette, er jeg der ute neste helg. Dere får formidle det til dem.

Takk for meg!

1 Like
102

Jeg synes fremdeles det er merkelig at vi diskuterer denne stien, siden kommunen og kartverket, allerede en gang har fjernet den fra alle kart, men den synes jo i flyfoto fordi noen går der allikevel og dermed blir tegnet på nytt her.
Så spørsmålet er, er det greit at folk går over privat grunn slik at det dannes en sti?
Og skal OSM være et kartverk til å stole på eller ikke?
Synes hele diskusjonen er håpløs i utgangspunktet.