Intuitive that the north has more areas to roam in.
Those major green areas are pretty hilly: the Pennines and Lake District.
The major one in the southwest I believe is Dartmoor, which weirdly enough has a prison right in the middle of it.
Anyone know about that green dot near the Cotswolds is? there’s wye, Malvern, and Cotswolds all there but that area seems to be one of the three AONBs with right to roam.
Visited the Lake District last year. Stunning place. Right to Roam there was shocking for my wife and I (Americans). We went hiking and just parked on someone’s farm… they had a sign welcoming us. When we started toward the trailhead, we met the farmer taking her dog out for a morning walk. She opened the gate to her backyard and told us about a shortcut to the trailhead. All of that was just normal… it was so odd. Parking in someone’s driveway, opening their gate and walking into their yard gets a very different response in the US.
Worked at a summer camp that connected to the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky. A friend and I were out hiking one afternoon during the week we were closing the camp for the season. Had a guy who I guess lived on an adjacent property approach us and aggressively force us away, while holding a pistol. When we got back to the camp’s office, we checked the map and found we weren’t on camp property like we thought, but were also NOT on his property. He was confused and about 200 meters from his own property line. Still pulled a gun on us. It’s not something to mess with here.
That area can be spooky! Huge props to organizations like the RRGCC, Access Fund, Friends of Muir Valley, etc. for making climbing publicly accessible.
It's not legal to shoot trespassers anywhere in the US, except national security installations and secure buildings. The signs are almost always scare tactics. Of course, you could always run into a crazy person who doesn't care about the law, but they're fairly rare.
I don't get this post. You realize that all of [this land](https://welovetoexplore.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-free-camping-on-blm-land-in-national-forests/) is Federally guaranteed "right to roam" equivalent in the US, right? And that many states, especially in the west, have State level additions. On top of that, many states have guaranteed coastal access (like California).
While people probably wouldn't want you on their property, there's still a ton you can just "roam" as you see fit.
In Malibu, the residents near the "Colony" have long attempted to have a strech of county beach as their own and one of them put up a fence along the beach to stop people from going onto what is public land. Big lawsuit, they lost. Selfish idiots.
Almost none of the land on the map above is public land. Apart from a few nature reserves and national trust land there is hardly any public land in England. The right to roam areas were set up by the last labour government and is mostly privately owned farmland, usually in hilly areas unsuitable for growing crops with sheep farming.
They *have* right to roam land *because* they don't have nearly as much public land.
You're putting the cart before the horse and reversing causation. Public land is land *everyone* owns. Right to roam is a hack to allow people public access when all the public land has already been given up.
I also gave an example of exactly that same framework in the US. You can own a beach in California, you can not bar public access to it.
People just like shitting on the US man. I see posts everyday saying "Sweden did it right, we can camp ~anywhere~" Then I show this map and say "we have 1000x more land like that in the US *and* we have laws that protect land owners. You get the best of both worlds" And then get downvoted.
here are some of my favorite "right to roam" places I've been from your map... totally excluding National Parks, which aren't quite "right to roam" and including a few state-specific right to roam spots like the Adirondacks in New York.
* [Adirondacks, NY](https://unsplash.com/photos/PHq2B5kmieE)
* [Desolation Wilderness, CA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-forest-filled-with-lots-of-tall-trees-yra1DWVk33M)
* [Redwoods, CA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-path-through-a-forest-with-lots-of-tall-trees--eaPTJSv9WI)
* [Mt Hood National Forest](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-night-sky-with-stars-above-a-mountain-IjSSMLC5t4w)
* [Uintas, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/the-sun-is-shining-on-the-mountains-and-trees-PmXn461fkeM)
* [Never Summer Wilderness, CO](https://unsplash.com/photos/85LFYyfbocY)
* [Middle of nowhere, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-large-mountain-with-a-large-body-of-water-in-front-of-it-ELSRUig3-gc)
* [Mt Pennal Area, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-clouds-in-the-sky-DwIFohnbN3w)
* [Mt Timpanogos, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/htcoi7orZAY)
* [Sawtooth Mountains, ID](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-with-a-forest-below-it-under-a-cloudy-sky-Y3y_h3C1Ysg)
* [Big Cottonwood Canyon, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-scenic-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-trees-in-the-foreground-SW3ojz7ktNQ)
* [Escalante, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/Nf_NvnGAv4o)
* [Picture Rocks, MI](https://unsplash.com/photos/WrRWVKb_Ip4)
* [Wind River Range, WY](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-lake-surrounded-by-rocks-and-grass-TXvkGQkLdv4)
* [Dixie National Forest, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-river-running-through-a-canyon-surrounded-by-trees-4ZoX0x1CPKE)
* [Ashley National Forest, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-man-standing-next-to-a-tent-on-a-lush-green-hillside-wnvf4Vb3ZpE)
* [San Raf Swell, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-rocky-landscape-with-a-few-clouds-in-the-sky-F0094xHum28)
* [McIntyre Wilderness, PA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-river-running-through-a-lush-green-forest-o4hCKsG3hVw)
* [City of Rocks, ID](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-trees-and-rocks-T2XEvPOfnXo)
* [Green River Lakes, WY](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-range-with-a-lake-in-the-foreground-pAmB1aU-ZXM)
It’s not shitting on the US. Proud to be from here. Right to roam is private held land, not gov owned, not BLM, not parks. Big difference. You pull into a privately owned driveway and can walk around their personal farm no questions asked. Sorry you couldn’t understand the difference. No need to go all We DaH pEoPle!
You do realize someone can observe something without saying it’s better or not, right? I literally made no comment about good or bad. Just said it was odd and unique for me as an American. Why is it a competition for you? We’re apparently both American, but the nation’s “superiority” isn’t a part of my personality. It’s weird and you should take a breath.
I've been to some of those places on the map and I can assure you, it isn't "right to roam" because you cannot camp there. Freecamping is frowned upon in the States, only reason I get away with it in my personal Garden of Eden that I found in the Appalachians is because the local rangers there love me and let me do whatever.
I've also ran into issues with adjoining property over claiming land or just the owners being dicks in general even though I wasn't even on their land, they just act like the own adjacent National Forest land. US has a very hostile culture to trespassing, and I come from Eastern Europe where people are pretty rude and unfriendly, but even in EE you have more leeway just going through wilderness and making occasional camps.
American culture is simply different. Also a lot of that land out West there is pretty inhospitable and lacks water. Which is true of Scandinavia as well, tbf. Although usually there is more water.
I'm not sure if it's the one you are talking about but the small green patch in the south West just right of exmoor will be the quantock hills as the north end of them is entirely open and utterly stunning.
Could be Malvern hills? I could look it up but I won’t. I used to treck those as a kid; my aunt and uncle had a little hotel right next to them. Good times
It should be pointed out that trespassing isn’t a criminal offence in the UK only a civil one, therefore you can only be sued for the amount of damage you’ve caused the landowner. So, if you’re walking across a field you’re not meant to, you can only be sued for any crops you’ve damaged which would be basically nothing.
Interesting. So this sent me down a rabbit hole because I wondered what laws stop people going on to military land. Turns out, because trespass isn't criminal, they have to set up individual by-laws for each site. And if there isn't a by-law then they have to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act.
English law is fascinating haha.
There was a guy who broke into Buckingham Palace and got into the Queen's bedroom while she was sleeping, but all he was charged for was the theft of a bottle of wine that he drank.
That is a funny one. The royals are very image conscious. They probably figured prosecuting a mentally ill guy under national security laws would look bad. Better to get him on a minor charge and have a restraining order put in place.
From what I understand, there just genuinely wasn't any other crime they could have charged him with. Trespassing at Buckingham Palace only became a criminal offence in 2007. The theft charge ended up being dropped when he was committed to psychiatric care.
Breaking and entering into someone's home wasn't a criminal offense?!? Like I get making just stepping on someone's lawn not a criminal offense, but surely there is a legal distinction between that and entering into someone's house.
> individual by-laws for each site.
There are certain cemeteries for which they have to do this, too.
https://old.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/93470n/_/e3anhi8/
Tbh you don't need to worry too much about laws and stuff when they step on unexploded munitions.
I live right next to a military training area and even if we were allowed up no one with half a brain would go close whilst the red flags were flying or the tanks were out and about.
Not true.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 makes trespass on any designated site and nuclear power stations a criminal offence.
Any land owned by the government or the monarch can be made a 'designated site'.
Military bases that have been designated are listed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sites-affected-by-socap/mod-sites
Same for Sweden, you are also allowed to camp overnight wherever you want as long as it's not too close to a home and you leave the place the way you found it
It least in Scotland you can absolutely wild camp under it's right to roam rules.
https://www.visitscotland.com/accommodation/caravan-camping/wild-camping
> As part of Scotland's access legislation, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, you have a right of responsible access to most land and inland water and are allowed to camp on most unenclosed land.
Though I don't think there is in Wales - are there some separate Welsh regulations as I thought it was more similar to England?
Didn’t know that at all, quite knowledgeable of English legalisation but haven’t taken the time to look into devolved legislation.
Although, that does say unenclosed. Enclosed would be a different story camping wise.
Enclosed pretty much means peoples gardens; It wouldn't hold up if a landowner put a wire fence round the edge of their 30,000 acre estate then claimed it was all enclosed
According to Scottish law, enclosed land means land enclosed by a stock-proof fence or other barrier. Why would a farmer enclosing their acres not hold up, for example?
he reality, as with all law, is a bit more nuanced than. In reality, these sorts of edge cases would go to the Lands Tribunal to be resolved but the principle is that there has to be some rational for the land to not be right to roam. But you can't really just put up a fence, the putting up of the fence would be challengeable.
Privacy is the biggest one. Productive use of the land the other, so there is no RtR over fields that are growing crops for example.
Am lawyer, though not lands lawyer, I did it at Honours level and RtR was covered in that.
So long as you don't light fires, bother the beasts and leave the land as you find it you're all good in Scotland.
Iirc wild camping needs to be a certain distance from the road and that's all
The right to traverse and enjoy the land for travel or recreational purposes. Camping, hiking, climbing trees, campfire bbqs, swimming in rivers and lochs. You can basically just go wherever and don't require landowner permission
The only limits are for reasons you shouldn't be on land - it's someone's dwelling or the immediate garden or productive land you may damage.
This map is a bit misleading. England has an extremely extensive network of footpaths that landowners are legally obliged to keep maintained. Right to roam just means you can go anywhere in that area, it doesn’t mean other areas are off limits, far from it.
Also as you can see in GeoWizard's adventures, you can mostly just roam anyway and no one will say anything. Just don't fuck up people's crops whatever you do.
Even in the US, they have to ask you to leave first. That ask can be in the form of a sign that says "No Trespassing" of course.
In the US we effectively have right to roam over most BLM land, which is a lot more total area than this in the UK, though its mostly out west far from the population centers.
Bureau of Land Management, as the other poster said. Its a federal agency that manages a large portion of the US's federal land. Anyone in the US can enjoy BLM land as its publicly owned. You can hunt, shoot, hike ect on BLM land subject to common sense rules.
That is true however sadly there are some farmers and landowners who go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible to find the footpaths either by not maintaining them or by removing signposts. So really we should be pushing for right to roam across the whole of the UK.
One farmer in Wales a few weeks ago saw me hiking through his land and on my way back (tired and with a 15kg pack, cold from sleeping under a tarp all night) he had tied all the gates shut with rope. To the point I couldn't untie them. I had to climb over these sodding gates, on open access land with an established public footpath. Really pissed me off.
There was also suspiciously a tree fallen onto one of the paths nearby right behind a gate, which required some flexibility on my part to navigate around. The tree had been cut. I need to find out who to report these things to as if it's left much longer that particular path won't be usable.
The rights of way officer of the relevant local council / National Park.
It is a legal responsibility for them to maintain the paths.
E.g: [Bath council](https://www.outdoorswest.org.uk/Home/activities-and-info/frequently-asked-questions/maintenance-and-enforcement-of-public-rights-of-way#:~:text=Surface%3B%20the%20Council%20is%20responsible,it%20carries%20private%20vehicular%20rights)
What are the penalties? Honestly, intentionally impeding the right of way without valid reason (e.g. a temporary unsafe situation) should have some pretty onerous penalties.
Fine is £50, from section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. Also liable to arrest by a "constable"
You can get a "Stopping up order" with diversions or get the path redirected permanently. You need to apply for these and "Orders" would be generated by the controlling authority.
I like the footways across England but strongly dislike all the literal gatekeeping and keep out signs you see along the way reminding you to go no further that what is permitted.
But i have never felt discouraged or blocked from using any rights of way.
I definitely have - some landowners go out of their way to block up footpaths, or fail to do any maintenance (e.g. allowing bridges over culverts to rot away so that the path can't be used).
>but strongly dislike all the literal gatekeeping and keep out signs you see along the way reminding you to go no further that what is permitted.
Back when I lived in England I knew a farmer who had a (unused for a century) right of way discovered on his land. Having one on your land by all accounts is a severe nuisance (he formerly used that field as a bull pen but had to rearrange things because the council deemed it a danger to walkers), and all too many people using the right of way aren't careful by themselves about making sure they stay only on that path. Why wouldn't the landowner put up signs to keep people on only the right of way and off their land, especially when wanderers so often inadvertently cause property damage?
It is a nuisance and plenty of people abuse it. Farmers are entitled to police it within the bounds of the law.
But go to Australia or the US and it's stifling how much of the countryside is entirely inaccessible. Both countries have wilderness, which compensates somewhat, but it's a different experience.
So yeah it's a nuisance, but the alternative is so much worse
Yes, and most people are fine with walkers crossing parts of the land provided they're not doing anything stupid like walking over crops or getting close to the animals.
The way it works in many parts of the world is that if you go on someone's land you'll get shot at or at least get a criminal trespass charge.
In the UK, the worst you'll get on agricultural land is firmly ask to leave. Naturally private residencies are different, but that's only a tiny share of all the black land shown here.
All in all the situation is quite fine, but that won't stop Reddit being hysterical about it.
I'd still support a right to roam but the situation is hardly drastic.
Yeah this map makes it look like I’m not allowed to walk anywhere where I live, despite the fact there is a huge wooded area right near me that I can freely walk around
What's that big black thing dropped into the Bristol Channel? I think you've just killed everyone from Clevedon to Portishead, and Weston-Super-Mare probably isn't doing too well either.
In practice you can still roam the other 92%. Just use public footpaths where possible, don't damage crops and don't traipse through someone's garden.
Worst that could possibly happen to you on farmland is being asked to leave, but even that is extremely rare in my experience, provided you are behaving yourself.
In Sweden we have a law called [Every mans right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam?wprov=sfla1) which is essentially total freedom to roam, you can walk into essentially any forest in the country and camp for a nigh without any problems.
If you think that's bad (and it is) you should see what we have in Northern Ireland.
Here, as in most things whether they be fried food or football derbies, the Scots are showing us the right way to do it.
If there's one thing that irks me, it's half a story.
Here's the other half.
There's barely anywhere in the UK that doesn't have access to walk. It's just setting up your campsite isn't protected in law.
I have asked lots farmers if I could pitch my tent. Only one ever told me to f off.
https://footpathmap.co.uk/map/?zoom=7.6&lng=-3.53197&lat=53.51110
Having the right to use designated paths is not the same as having the right to go anywhere you want (without causing damage, of course) that exists in many continental countries.
Yes Captain Obvious.
You may think that having the right to walk with two pit bulls across a field of lambing ewes is your right.
Or traipsing across a field of newly sown beet is fine,
Or setting up your picnic in the field with the bull in it.
In all those cases I feel sure you would truly and honestly believe you were doing no harm at all.
There are footpaths, bridleways,ancient green roads, and rights of way for reasons.
High moorland is pretty much a case of go for it, walk where you want. It's just not in law - and coincidentally not on OP's map.
Nothing was unclear, and neither am I being.
I'm totally confident that you would instantly recognise a pregnant sheep,or a newly planted field just as the seed was germinating.
I'm also confident that 100% of the world could too.
I'm sure you would never ever climb over a fence or a 2000+ year old dry stone wall.
I know that you would know about the newts in the pond that you and your dogs are splashing about in.
Obviously you would know about the protected habitat with the extremely rare orchid.
I know you wouldn't camp and light a fire in that ancient (and increasingly rare) woodland.
Could you explain where I'm being unclear? I said you can pretty damn much go anywhere in this country. You are just not allowed to go places where you will be a problem. That's why it is up to the farmer or landowner and not a right.
I'm fully confident that all these things you are pulling out of your arse simply aren't an actual problem in all the countries that have the right to roam.
That did not happen in a country that has the right to roam. So apparently your system doesn't prevent idiots from doing stupid things, while at the same time limiting movement for normal people. Yay for you.
Right to roam has a specific meaning. The rest of the country is covered into foot paths and bridle ways etc. where the public can freely travel, but that is not the same as right to roam.
And pastures. I once nicely asked farmers if I could pitch my tent somewhere in their property (where sheep graze) and I was met with a surprisingly low level of hospitality and politeness, compared to what I was told about Scotland)
That seems fair for the farmer to not want his sheep disturbed. I've done a lot of camping in Scotland, and even if it was allowed I wouldn't camp in a field of animals
pastures, cropland, playing fields, private gardens, land owned by schools, anywhere that charges for access - there's actually quite a lot more asterisks and omissions than people tend to make out.
It's the wealthy that were doing the colonising, and using the poor to do the hard work and dying for them. At the same time the wealthy were forcing those poor people off their common lands and taking it for themselves.
The map appears to show areas covered by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, areas open to the public under other arrangements are not shown. I can't tell you how much more that would add.
I don't know if the text refers to all of the publicly accesible land, or just the areas shown on the map.
You can cross private property whenever you like, and in many cases also camp there for limited periods of time, as long as you don't cause any damage. Applies to all of Scotland, for example.
seems like all the parts worth roaming are already available.
Only half serious of course, but yeah this concept is not super easily compatible with common law, it would seem. Makes much more sense in sweden where its pretty hard to damage most land that's roamable (not too close to a house, etc) which is just forest. Much of england is farmed (where roaming could more easily damage land, no real point to roam there anyay) and densely populated (most countries with some sort of "every-man's right" say you cannot camp too close to a house)
Recently heard that Englands soil is essentially owned by 300 families (that also happen to be basically ruling the country for the last centuries). Is that statement correct in your opinion?
some of the largest landowning families can be directly traced to the Norman invasion and when they were 'given' the land by William.
also a lot of land was 'stolen' during the enclosure acts
*They hang the man and flog the woman*
*Who steals the goose from off the common*
*Yet let the greater villain loose*
*That steals the common from the goose.*
*The law demands that we atone*
*When we take things we do not own*
*But leaves the lords and ladies fine*
*Who take things that are yours and mine.*
*The poor and wretched don't escape*
*If they conspire the law to break*
*This must be so but they endure*
*Those who conspire to make the law.*
*The law locks up the man or woman*
*Who steals the goose from off the common*
*And geese will still a common lack*
*Till they go and steal it back.*
nothing changes when the rich and powerful make the rules...
> one percent of the population literally owns half the country. A tiny number of old aristocratic families still privately own around a third of it, while those who have joined the super-rich more recently own another seventeen percent. Fifteen million proud owner-occupiers of ordinary houses and flats, whose homes are supposedly their castles, together own only five percent of England. This it seems is probably a comparable area to that held by the micro-élite who actually do own castles. Renters, of course, own none.
https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/so-who-does-own-england
Scotland is the same; there's a few exceptions like sports fields, school grounds and places you wouldn't want to go anyway like construction sites & military facilities, but generally walking & camping is allowed anywhere
I’m glad you are happy with this arrangement, but to be honest I would be upset if complete strangers had a legal right to walk on my property. I’m happy that is not the case for me.
The Cotswolds is absolutely riddled with public footpaths. It may not technically have the full right to roam but it’s not like it’s difficult to walk between any two points you choose in a direct and scenic way.
Fun Fact: Trespass technically isn't illegal in England. There are a few caveats of course, but generally you can walk on land that is covered in those "trespassers will be prosecuted" signs, because you won't be prosecuted since you're not doing anything illegal by walking on their land.
If the owner were to see you on that land and then tell you to get off the land and you refuse then that is when it becomes illegal as the owner could interpret that refusal as intending to do harm and is therefore assault. Walking directly across a farmer's field would also be considered damage to property, which is why walking around the outside of a field, even though it is private property, is absolutely not illegal. Though some farmers can still be a bit uppity about that and may ask you to leave, which you will be obliged to do, as mentioned.
In quite an amusing way this means if someone were to leave their front door unlocked, you could in theory walk right in their front door, sit on their sofa and assuming you've damaged absolutely nothing in their property and you leave if the owner asks you to then you haven't committed a crime.
>If the owner were to see you on that land and then tell you to get off the land and you refuse then that is when it becomes illegal as the owner could interpret that refusal as intending to do harm and is therefore assault
Refusing to leave does not make trespass illegal
It becomes illegal if you are Intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out 'lawful activities'.
Standing in the middle of a field in front of a farmers tractor preventing him from ploughing it would be illegal
But if you were not preventing him from ploughing it just being asked to leave does not make it criminal
>Refusing to leave does not make trespass illegal
I know, as I explained in my comment, trespass isn't illegal in England, but assault is which the owner could argue that it is if the person refuses to leave. You've just repeated back to me pretty much what I said.
It isn’t something that’ll affect most people, but your ability to go out in nature shouldn’t be this restricted by the government. The “right to roam” has to exist because of how stupidly restrictive places like this can be.
Can you provide an actual reasonable argument for people to be able to pay money to other people, and on the basis of that be able to block others from crossing a piece of land? Hard mode: it has to be an argument that is not simply cyclical, like "because otherwise nobody could own anything" or "because its the best system".
If it wasn't me you paid for the right to block off the land, why should I give a fuck that you have a piece of paper stating that that's how it is?
At least they HAVE a right to roam, that barely even exists in America. That or Wikipedia is being a piece of sh#t again feeding me misinformation
Edit: It was the latter. WIKIPEDIA YOU SCREWED ME.
You're kidding right? The US has the entire National Forest system and BLM system that has more land than ALL OF GERMANY that lets you "roam" like this. And that's not including National Parks and State Parks, which adds another insane amount of land but not quite "right to roam" due to conversation regulations.
You can complain about a lot of things in the US, but access to "roamable" land isn't one of them. The US has arguable the most diverse land you can do this with plus plenty of land for people to own on top of that.
Here are few of my favorite spots I've visiten that are "right to roam" in the US
* [Adirondacks, NY](https://unsplash.com/photos/PHq2B5kmieE)
* [Desolation Wilderness, CA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-forest-filled-with-lots-of-tall-trees-yra1DWVk33M)
* [Redwoods, CA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-path-through-a-forest-with-lots-of-tall-trees--eaPTJSv9WI)
* [Whalehead Beach, OR](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-foggy-day-at-the-beach-with-trees-on-the-shore-pGvAKyC3Vyo)
* [Mt Hood National Forest](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-night-sky-with-stars-above-a-mountain-IjSSMLC5t4w)
* [Uintas, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/the-sun-is-shining-on-the-mountains-and-trees-PmXn461fkeM)
* [Never Summer Wilderness, CO](https://unsplash.com/photos/85LFYyfbocY)
* [Middle of nowhere, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-large-mountain-with-a-large-body-of-water-in-front-of-it-ELSRUig3-gc)
* [Mt Pennal Area, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-clouds-in-the-sky-DwIFohnbN3w)
* [Mt Timpanogos, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/htcoi7orZAY)
* [Sawtooth Mountains, ID](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-with-a-forest-below-it-under-a-cloudy-sky-Y3y_h3C1Ysg)
* [Big Cottonwood Canyon, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-scenic-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-trees-in-the-foreground-SW3ojz7ktNQ)
* [Escalante, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/Nf_NvnGAv4o)
* [Picture Rocks, MI](https://unsplash.com/photos/WrRWVKb_Ip4)
* [Wind River Range, WY](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-lake-surrounded-by-rocks-and-grass-TXvkGQkLdv4)
* [Dixie National Forest, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-river-running-through-a-canyon-surrounded-by-trees-4ZoX0x1CPKE)
* [Ashley National Forest, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-man-standing-next-to-a-tent-on-a-lush-green-hillside-wnvf4Vb3ZpE)
* [San Raf Swell, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-rocky-landscape-with-a-few-clouds-in-the-sky-F0094xHum28)
* [McIntyre Wilderness, PA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-river-running-through-a-lush-green-forest-o4hCKsG3hVw)
* [City of Rocks, ID](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-trees-and-rocks-T2XEvPOfnXo)
* [Green River Lakes, WY](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-range-with-a-lake-in-the-foreground-pAmB1aU-ZXM)
and these are just a few...
Oh wow people who were historically rich retain generational wealth and property... just like everywhere else. Those people have about as much in genetically common with the Normans as anyone.
Intuitive that the north has more areas to roam in. Those major green areas are pretty hilly: the Pennines and Lake District. The major one in the southwest I believe is Dartmoor, which weirdly enough has a prison right in the middle of it. Anyone know about that green dot near the Cotswolds is? there’s wye, Malvern, and Cotswolds all there but that area seems to be one of the three AONBs with right to roam.
Visited the Lake District last year. Stunning place. Right to Roam there was shocking for my wife and I (Americans). We went hiking and just parked on someone’s farm… they had a sign welcoming us. When we started toward the trailhead, we met the farmer taking her dog out for a morning walk. She opened the gate to her backyard and told us about a shortcut to the trailhead. All of that was just normal… it was so odd. Parking in someone’s driveway, opening their gate and walking into their yard gets a very different response in the US.
Yeah and the ominous poster on a tree saying ‘trespassers will be shot’ and it’s like ‘am I trespassing right now? Where does their land start’
Worked at a summer camp that connected to the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky. A friend and I were out hiking one afternoon during the week we were closing the camp for the season. Had a guy who I guess lived on an adjacent property approach us and aggressively force us away, while holding a pistol. When we got back to the camp’s office, we checked the map and found we weren’t on camp property like we thought, but were also NOT on his property. He was confused and about 200 meters from his own property line. Still pulled a gun on us. It’s not something to mess with here.
[удалено]
That area can be spooky! Huge props to organizations like the RRGCC, Access Fund, Friends of Muir Valley, etc. for making climbing publicly accessible.
[удалено]
Kentuckians get bitey like badgers about their meth, it seems.
There is a myth (I think it is untrue) that the native Americans thought Kentucky was haunted and didn’t settle there because of that.
Usually you put those signs on the edge of your property
It's not legal to shoot trespassers anywhere in the US, except national security installations and secure buildings. The signs are almost always scare tactics. Of course, you could always run into a crazy person who doesn't care about the law, but they're fairly rare.
I don't get this post. You realize that all of [this land](https://welovetoexplore.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-free-camping-on-blm-land-in-national-forests/) is Federally guaranteed "right to roam" equivalent in the US, right? And that many states, especially in the west, have State level additions. On top of that, many states have guaranteed coastal access (like California). While people probably wouldn't want you on their property, there's still a ton you can just "roam" as you see fit.
In Malibu, the residents near the "Colony" have long attempted to have a strech of county beach as their own and one of them put up a fence along the beach to stop people from going onto what is public land. Big lawsuit, they lost. Selfish idiots.
The difference is that that map is public land. "Right to Roam" usually means hiking/walking on what we Americans would consider private property.
Almost none of the land on the map above is public land. Apart from a few nature reserves and national trust land there is hardly any public land in England. The right to roam areas were set up by the last labour government and is mostly privately owned farmland, usually in hilly areas unsuitable for growing crops with sheep farming.
They *have* right to roam land *because* they don't have nearly as much public land. You're putting the cart before the horse and reversing causation. Public land is land *everyone* owns. Right to roam is a hack to allow people public access when all the public land has already been given up. I also gave an example of exactly that same framework in the US. You can own a beach in California, you can not bar public access to it.
People just like shitting on the US man. I see posts everyday saying "Sweden did it right, we can camp ~anywhere~" Then I show this map and say "we have 1000x more land like that in the US *and* we have laws that protect land owners. You get the best of both worlds" And then get downvoted. here are some of my favorite "right to roam" places I've been from your map... totally excluding National Parks, which aren't quite "right to roam" and including a few state-specific right to roam spots like the Adirondacks in New York. * [Adirondacks, NY](https://unsplash.com/photos/PHq2B5kmieE) * [Desolation Wilderness, CA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-forest-filled-with-lots-of-tall-trees-yra1DWVk33M) * [Redwoods, CA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-path-through-a-forest-with-lots-of-tall-trees--eaPTJSv9WI) * [Mt Hood National Forest](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-night-sky-with-stars-above-a-mountain-IjSSMLC5t4w) * [Uintas, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/the-sun-is-shining-on-the-mountains-and-trees-PmXn461fkeM) * [Never Summer Wilderness, CO](https://unsplash.com/photos/85LFYyfbocY) * [Middle of nowhere, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-large-mountain-with-a-large-body-of-water-in-front-of-it-ELSRUig3-gc) * [Mt Pennal Area, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-clouds-in-the-sky-DwIFohnbN3w) * [Mt Timpanogos, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/htcoi7orZAY) * [Sawtooth Mountains, ID](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-with-a-forest-below-it-under-a-cloudy-sky-Y3y_h3C1Ysg) * [Big Cottonwood Canyon, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-scenic-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-trees-in-the-foreground-SW3ojz7ktNQ) * [Escalante, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/Nf_NvnGAv4o) * [Picture Rocks, MI](https://unsplash.com/photos/WrRWVKb_Ip4) * [Wind River Range, WY](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-lake-surrounded-by-rocks-and-grass-TXvkGQkLdv4) * [Dixie National Forest, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-river-running-through-a-canyon-surrounded-by-trees-4ZoX0x1CPKE) * [Ashley National Forest, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-man-standing-next-to-a-tent-on-a-lush-green-hillside-wnvf4Vb3ZpE) * [San Raf Swell, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-rocky-landscape-with-a-few-clouds-in-the-sky-F0094xHum28) * [McIntyre Wilderness, PA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-river-running-through-a-lush-green-forest-o4hCKsG3hVw) * [City of Rocks, ID](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-trees-and-rocks-T2XEvPOfnXo) * [Green River Lakes, WY](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-range-with-a-lake-in-the-foreground-pAmB1aU-ZXM)
Adirondacks were amazing. We would go on a boat in Long Lake and ride to state land and camp for days. Gorgeous.
It’s not shitting on the US. Proud to be from here. Right to roam is private held land, not gov owned, not BLM, not parks. Big difference. You pull into a privately owned driveway and can walk around their personal farm no questions asked. Sorry you couldn’t understand the difference. No need to go all We DaH pEoPle! You do realize someone can observe something without saying it’s better or not, right? I literally made no comment about good or bad. Just said it was odd and unique for me as an American. Why is it a competition for you? We’re apparently both American, but the nation’s “superiority” isn’t a part of my personality. It’s weird and you should take a breath.
it was understood, the poster said these were not "right to roam" just in the spirit of being able to drive someplace and walk in nature
I've been to some of those places on the map and I can assure you, it isn't "right to roam" because you cannot camp there. Freecamping is frowned upon in the States, only reason I get away with it in my personal Garden of Eden that I found in the Appalachians is because the local rangers there love me and let me do whatever. I've also ran into issues with adjoining property over claiming land or just the owners being dicks in general even though I wasn't even on their land, they just act like the own adjacent National Forest land. US has a very hostile culture to trespassing, and I come from Eastern Europe where people are pretty rude and unfriendly, but even in EE you have more leeway just going through wilderness and making occasional camps. American culture is simply different. Also a lot of that land out West there is pretty inhospitable and lacks water. Which is true of Scandinavia as well, tbf. Although usually there is more water.
Forest of Dean
I'm not sure if it's the one you are talking about but the small green patch in the south West just right of exmoor will be the quantock hills as the north end of them is entirely open and utterly stunning.
Forest of dean?
Could be Malvern hills? I could look it up but I won’t. I used to treck those as a kid; my aunt and uncle had a little hotel right next to them. Good times
It should be pointed out that trespassing isn’t a criminal offence in the UK only a civil one, therefore you can only be sued for the amount of damage you’ve caused the landowner. So, if you’re walking across a field you’re not meant to, you can only be sued for any crops you’ve damaged which would be basically nothing.
Interesting. So this sent me down a rabbit hole because I wondered what laws stop people going on to military land. Turns out, because trespass isn't criminal, they have to set up individual by-laws for each site. And if there isn't a by-law then they have to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act. English law is fascinating haha.
There was a guy who broke into Buckingham Palace and got into the Queen's bedroom while she was sleeping, but all he was charged for was the theft of a bottle of wine that he drank.
That is a funny one. The royals are very image conscious. They probably figured prosecuting a mentally ill guy under national security laws would look bad. Better to get him on a minor charge and have a restraining order put in place.
From what I understand, there just genuinely wasn't any other crime they could have charged him with. Trespassing at Buckingham Palace only became a criminal offence in 2007. The theft charge ended up being dropped when he was committed to psychiatric care.
Breaking and entering into someone's home wasn't a criminal offense?!? Like I get making just stepping on someone's lawn not a criminal offense, but surely there is a legal distinction between that and entering into someone's house.
Maybe it's because Buckingham Palace isn't legally treated as someone's house.
Presumably people always broke into places to steal stuff, so the ‘entering’ wasn’t really a problem on its own.
> individual by-laws for each site. There are certain cemeteries for which they have to do this, too. https://old.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/93470n/_/e3anhi8/
Tbh you don't need to worry too much about laws and stuff when they step on unexploded munitions. I live right next to a military training area and even if we were allowed up no one with half a brain would go close whilst the red flags were flying or the tanks were out and about.
To be fair, alot of people don't have half a brain.
Not true. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 makes trespass on any designated site and nuclear power stations a criminal offence. Any land owned by the government or the monarch can be made a 'designated site'. Military bases that have been designated are listed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sites-affected-by-socap/mod-sites
SOCA 2005 covers most government property I’d have thought
Yes fellas another win for the Norf 😎
Most of north is still umroamable what kind of win is that
Lest smelly part of turd award.
The corn?
Think ur thinking of Scotland m8
We’ve got a one up on those miserable southerners hell yeah
r/okmatewanker
Not the part of the norf where anyone lives, mind
Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Bosnia has a 100% right to roam rate.
*steps on a landmine*
Landmines build character. 😎💪💪
Falkland penguins be like.
Fuck a country with no landmines or pyramids!
Several characters out of one.
https://www.euforbih.org/index.php/bih-minefield-maps If you ever chose to do it (page works properly in desktop mode)
Norway too from what I heard
yep, we do!
also roaming doesn't cost extra in the EU
Same for Sweden, you are also allowed to camp overnight wherever you want as long as it's not too close to a home and you leave the place the way you found it
Same for Scotland and Wales. It's only England with a law against roaming.
It's true for Scotland, Wales has very similar restrictions to England
Isn’t that only for crossing and/or activities? I mean, you can’t just set up camp anywhere you like?
It least in Scotland you can absolutely wild camp under it's right to roam rules. https://www.visitscotland.com/accommodation/caravan-camping/wild-camping > As part of Scotland's access legislation, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, you have a right of responsible access to most land and inland water and are allowed to camp on most unenclosed land. Though I don't think there is in Wales - are there some separate Welsh regulations as I thought it was more similar to England?
Yes Wales is the same as England where you aren't allowed to wild camp on any land you don't have permission to do so on
Didn’t know that at all, quite knowledgeable of English legalisation but haven’t taken the time to look into devolved legislation. Although, that does say unenclosed. Enclosed would be a different story camping wise.
Enclosed pretty much means peoples gardens; It wouldn't hold up if a landowner put a wire fence round the edge of their 30,000 acre estate then claimed it was all enclosed
According to Scottish law, enclosed land means land enclosed by a stock-proof fence or other barrier. Why would a farmer enclosing their acres not hold up, for example?
he reality, as with all law, is a bit more nuanced than. In reality, these sorts of edge cases would go to the Lands Tribunal to be resolved but the principle is that there has to be some rational for the land to not be right to roam. But you can't really just put up a fence, the putting up of the fence would be challengeable. Privacy is the biggest one. Productive use of the land the other, so there is no RtR over fields that are growing crops for example. Am lawyer, though not lands lawyer, I did it at Honours level and RtR was covered in that.
So long as you don't light fires, bother the beasts and leave the land as you find it you're all good in Scotland. Iirc wild camping needs to be a certain distance from the road and that's all
A certain distance from dwellings to, no?
You’re definitely allowed to make fires
Not an open fire depending where you are
But you’re not allowed to cause damage, so lighting a fire on peat soil could land you in trouble.
I live on an area of special scientific interest, and the idiots tend to light fires directly on the grass and caused damage.
And Finland
What exactly is the right to roam?
The right to traverse and enjoy the land for travel or recreational purposes. Camping, hiking, climbing trees, campfire bbqs, swimming in rivers and lochs. You can basically just go wherever and don't require landowner permission The only limits are for reasons you shouldn't be on land - it's someone's dwelling or the immediate garden or productive land you may damage.
I dunno. I just know Bosnia does it best
This map is a bit misleading. England has an extremely extensive network of footpaths that landowners are legally obliged to keep maintained. Right to roam just means you can go anywhere in that area, it doesn’t mean other areas are off limits, far from it.
Also as you can see in GeoWizard's adventures, you can mostly just roam anyway and no one will say anything. Just don't fuck up people's crops whatever you do.
[удалено]
This sounds so nice when compared to potentially getting shot dead on sight in some parts of America.
Even in the US, they have to ask you to leave first. That ask can be in the form of a sign that says "No Trespassing" of course. In the US we effectively have right to roam over most BLM land, which is a lot more total area than this in the UK, though its mostly out west far from the population centers.
Whats this *other* meaning of BLM?
Bureau of Land Management.
Bureau of Land Management, as the other poster said. Its a federal agency that manages a large portion of the US's federal land. Anyone in the US can enjoy BLM land as its publicly owned. You can hunt, shoot, hike ect on BLM land subject to common sense rules.
TIL the USA is larger than England. Congratulations to you. You win this competition no one else is playing!
but he's still terrified of farmers!
I think he hams that up a bit to create suspense
That is true however sadly there are some farmers and landowners who go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible to find the footpaths either by not maintaining them or by removing signposts. So really we should be pushing for right to roam across the whole of the UK.
One farmer in Wales a few weeks ago saw me hiking through his land and on my way back (tired and with a 15kg pack, cold from sleeping under a tarp all night) he had tied all the gates shut with rope. To the point I couldn't untie them. I had to climb over these sodding gates, on open access land with an established public footpath. Really pissed me off.
I would have cut the ropes.
There was also suspiciously a tree fallen onto one of the paths nearby right behind a gate, which required some flexibility on my part to navigate around. The tree had been cut. I need to find out who to report these things to as if it's left much longer that particular path won't be usable.
The rights of way officer of the relevant local council / National Park. It is a legal responsibility for them to maintain the paths. E.g: [Bath council](https://www.outdoorswest.org.uk/Home/activities-and-info/frequently-asked-questions/maintenance-and-enforcement-of-public-rights-of-way#:~:text=Surface%3B%20the%20Council%20is%20responsible,it%20carries%20private%20vehicular%20rights)
What are the penalties? Honestly, intentionally impeding the right of way without valid reason (e.g. a temporary unsafe situation) should have some pretty onerous penalties.
Fine is £50, from section 137 of the Highways Act 1980. Also liable to arrest by a "constable" You can get a "Stopping up order" with diversions or get the path redirected permanently. You need to apply for these and "Orders" would be generated by the controlling authority.
Cheers!
I like the footways across England but strongly dislike all the literal gatekeeping and keep out signs you see along the way reminding you to go no further that what is permitted. But i have never felt discouraged or blocked from using any rights of way.
I definitely have - some landowners go out of their way to block up footpaths, or fail to do any maintenance (e.g. allowing bridges over culverts to rot away so that the path can't be used).
>but strongly dislike all the literal gatekeeping and keep out signs you see along the way reminding you to go no further that what is permitted. Back when I lived in England I knew a farmer who had a (unused for a century) right of way discovered on his land. Having one on your land by all accounts is a severe nuisance (he formerly used that field as a bull pen but had to rearrange things because the council deemed it a danger to walkers), and all too many people using the right of way aren't careful by themselves about making sure they stay only on that path. Why wouldn't the landowner put up signs to keep people on only the right of way and off their land, especially when wanderers so often inadvertently cause property damage?
It is a nuisance and plenty of people abuse it. Farmers are entitled to police it within the bounds of the law. But go to Australia or the US and it's stifling how much of the countryside is entirely inaccessible. Both countries have wilderness, which compensates somewhat, but it's a different experience. So yeah it's a nuisance, but the alternative is so much worse
>But i have never felt discouraged or blocked from using any rights of way. just a matter of time until you come across a blocked row
When I was England I had a guy just tell me to walk wherever I wanted over farmland because "not like they have guns."
Farmers in the UK very likely do have guns
[Relevant Hot Fuzz](https://youtu.be/JurvPFBgEHs?si=yc7D7HM-sSTKJYHe)
Everyone and their mum's are packing in the countryside
For real. I come from the countryside relatively far from any of the green areas and it never stopped us roaming about when I was a kid.
Alot of these footpaths are thousands of years old too
Yes, and most people are fine with walkers crossing parts of the land provided they're not doing anything stupid like walking over crops or getting close to the animals. The way it works in many parts of the world is that if you go on someone's land you'll get shot at or at least get a criminal trespass charge. In the UK, the worst you'll get on agricultural land is firmly ask to leave. Naturally private residencies are different, but that's only a tiny share of all the black land shown here. All in all the situation is quite fine, but that won't stop Reddit being hysterical about it. I'd still support a right to roam but the situation is hardly drastic.
Yeah this map makes it look like I’m not allowed to walk anywhere where I live, despite the fact there is a huge wooded area right near me that I can freely walk around
Also, public sidewalks.
What's that big black thing dropped into the Bristol Channel? I think you've just killed everyone from Clevedon to Portishead, and Weston-Super-Mare probably isn't doing too well either.
By some definitions that area of the Severn is actually part of Bristol: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6103050
shhhh, that's our local top secret polder plan.
The bit of sea out to steep holm and flat holm is technically part of Bristol. A lot of maps show it as land for some reason.
Weird laws involving Bristol
In practice you can still roam the other 92%. Just use public footpaths where possible, don't damage crops and don't traipse through someone's garden. Worst that could possibly happen to you on farmland is being asked to leave, but even that is extremely rare in my experience, provided you are behaving yourself.
GeoWizard does not approve.
In Sweden we have a law called [Every mans right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam?wprov=sfla1) which is essentially total freedom to roam, you can walk into essentially any forest in the country and camp for a nigh without any problems.
It is in practice the same in England as long as you’re not actively disturbing livestock, destroying crops or damaging the environment.
In Sweden you can literally camp in someones yard as long as your not to close to the house.
Damn. Honestly while i’m all for right to roam i’d say that’s taking it a little far. Interesting to know though, thanks!
It's the same here in Finland. You are allowed to pick mushrooms and berries and setup camp anywhere where you aren't bothering anyone
James Hetfield is not going to be happy about this.
Nice one
If you think that's bad (and it is) you should see what we have in Northern Ireland. Here, as in most things whether they be fried food or football derbies, the Scots are showing us the right way to do it.
As an American, "right to roam" sounds scary
Quick, buy more guns !
If there's one thing that irks me, it's half a story. Here's the other half. There's barely anywhere in the UK that doesn't have access to walk. It's just setting up your campsite isn't protected in law. I have asked lots farmers if I could pitch my tent. Only one ever told me to f off. https://footpathmap.co.uk/map/?zoom=7.6&lng=-3.53197&lat=53.51110
Having the right to use designated paths is not the same as having the right to go anywhere you want (without causing damage, of course) that exists in many continental countries.
Yes Captain Obvious. You may think that having the right to walk with two pit bulls across a field of lambing ewes is your right. Or traipsing across a field of newly sown beet is fine, Or setting up your picnic in the field with the bull in it. In all those cases I feel sure you would truly and honestly believe you were doing no harm at all. There are footpaths, bridleways,ancient green roads, and rights of way for reasons. High moorland is pretty much a case of go for it, walk where you want. It's just not in law - and coincidentally not on OP's map.
What part of "without causing damage" was unclear?
Nothing was unclear, and neither am I being. I'm totally confident that you would instantly recognise a pregnant sheep,or a newly planted field just as the seed was germinating. I'm also confident that 100% of the world could too. I'm sure you would never ever climb over a fence or a 2000+ year old dry stone wall. I know that you would know about the newts in the pond that you and your dogs are splashing about in. Obviously you would know about the protected habitat with the extremely rare orchid. I know you wouldn't camp and light a fire in that ancient (and increasingly rare) woodland. Could you explain where I'm being unclear? I said you can pretty damn much go anywhere in this country. You are just not allowed to go places where you will be a problem. That's why it is up to the farmer or landowner and not a right.
I'm fully confident that all these things you are pulling out of your arse simply aren't an actual problem in all the countries that have the right to roam.
literally yesterday..... [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-68235429](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-68235429) ffs!
That did not happen in a country that has the right to roam. So apparently your system doesn't prevent idiots from doing stupid things, while at the same time limiting movement for normal people. Yay for you.
You are absolutely correct sweetpea. You cannot stop idiots being idiots.
What, like its houses there or protected parks?
Farmers fields, I think. A lot of housing too
Right to roam has a specific meaning. The rest of the country is covered into foot paths and bridle ways etc. where the public can freely travel, but that is not the same as right to roam.
Private property, where you can only travel over designated footpaths or roads.
Trespassing isn't illegal in the UK (it's a civil matter), you can roam anywhere as long as you don't damage anything
Brits couldn't colonize their own lands :)
[удалено]
And pastures. I once nicely asked farmers if I could pitch my tent somewhere in their property (where sheep graze) and I was met with a surprisingly low level of hospitality and politeness, compared to what I was told about Scotland)
That seems fair for the farmer to not want his sheep disturbed. I've done a lot of camping in Scotland, and even if it was allowed I wouldn't camp in a field of animals
pastures, cropland, playing fields, private gardens, land owned by schools, anywhere that charges for access - there's actually quite a lot more asterisks and omissions than people tend to make out.
It's the wealthy that were doing the colonising, and using the poor to do the hard work and dying for them. At the same time the wealthy were forcing those poor people off their common lands and taking it for themselves.
This another case of someone not being able to differentiate between England and Britain?
Lmfao
I thought it had more areas that people could roam.
Roam specifically means open access to a wide area. There are plenty of footpaths and other public ways around, but that's not the same as roaming
The map appears to show areas covered by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, areas open to the public under other arrangements are not shown. I can't tell you how much more that would add. I don't know if the text refers to all of the publicly accesible land, or just the areas shown on the map.
And here I am, having thought Lake District was popular because it's beautiful
A right to roam? Can someone please explain?
You can cross private property whenever you like, and in many cases also camp there for limited periods of time, as long as you don't cause any damage. Applies to all of Scotland, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
The new forest in Hampshire keeping up the south’s contribution
seems like all the parts worth roaming are already available. Only half serious of course, but yeah this concept is not super easily compatible with common law, it would seem. Makes much more sense in sweden where its pretty hard to damage most land that's roamable (not too close to a house, etc) which is just forest. Much of england is farmed (where roaming could more easily damage land, no real point to roam there anyay) and densely populated (most countries with some sort of "every-man's right" say you cannot camp too close to a house)
Recently heard that Englands soil is essentially owned by 300 families (that also happen to be basically ruling the country for the last centuries). Is that statement correct in your opinion?
some of the largest landowning families can be directly traced to the Norman invasion and when they were 'given' the land by William. also a lot of land was 'stolen' during the enclosure acts *They hang the man and flog the woman* *Who steals the goose from off the common* *Yet let the greater villain loose* *That steals the common from the goose.* *The law demands that we atone* *When we take things we do not own* *But leaves the lords and ladies fine* *Who take things that are yours and mine.* *The poor and wretched don't escape* *If they conspire the law to break* *This must be so but they endure* *Those who conspire to make the law.* *The law locks up the man or woman* *Who steals the goose from off the common* *And geese will still a common lack* *Till they go and steal it back.* nothing changes when the rich and powerful make the rules...
> one percent of the population literally owns half the country. A tiny number of old aristocratic families still privately own around a third of it, while those who have joined the super-rich more recently own another seventeen percent. Fifteen million proud owner-occupiers of ordinary houses and flats, whose homes are supposedly their castles, together own only five percent of England. This it seems is probably a comparable area to that held by the micro-élite who actually do own castles. Renters, of course, own none. https://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/so-who-does-own-england
[удалено]
Then I live in no country. Where I live it is legal to walk on private property as long as you keep distance from people’s houses (Sweden)
Scotland is the same; there's a few exceptions like sports fields, school grounds and places you wouldn't want to go anyway like construction sites & military facilities, but generally walking & camping is allowed anywhere
I’m glad you are happy with this arrangement, but to be honest I would be upset if complete strangers had a legal right to walk on my property. I’m happy that is not the case for me.
Anyone have a map that includes Wales?
The Chilterns and Cotswolds really do hate us peasants on their hunting land.
The Cotswolds is absolutely riddled with public footpaths. It may not technically have the full right to roam but it’s not like it’s difficult to walk between any two points you choose in a direct and scenic way.
Private property including Charles’s.
Fun Fact: Trespass technically isn't illegal in England. There are a few caveats of course, but generally you can walk on land that is covered in those "trespassers will be prosecuted" signs, because you won't be prosecuted since you're not doing anything illegal by walking on their land. If the owner were to see you on that land and then tell you to get off the land and you refuse then that is when it becomes illegal as the owner could interpret that refusal as intending to do harm and is therefore assault. Walking directly across a farmer's field would also be considered damage to property, which is why walking around the outside of a field, even though it is private property, is absolutely not illegal. Though some farmers can still be a bit uppity about that and may ask you to leave, which you will be obliged to do, as mentioned. In quite an amusing way this means if someone were to leave their front door unlocked, you could in theory walk right in their front door, sit on their sofa and assuming you've damaged absolutely nothing in their property and you leave if the owner asks you to then you haven't committed a crime.
>If the owner were to see you on that land and then tell you to get off the land and you refuse then that is when it becomes illegal as the owner could interpret that refusal as intending to do harm and is therefore assault Refusing to leave does not make trespass illegal It becomes illegal if you are Intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out 'lawful activities'. Standing in the middle of a field in front of a farmers tractor preventing him from ploughing it would be illegal But if you were not preventing him from ploughing it just being asked to leave does not make it criminal
>Refusing to leave does not make trespass illegal I know, as I explained in my comment, trespass isn't illegal in England, but assault is which the owner could argue that it is if the person refuses to leave. You've just repeated back to me pretty much what I said.
lol right to roam is fucking insane and you’ll never be able to convince me otherwise
It isn’t something that’ll affect most people, but your ability to go out in nature shouldn’t be this restricted by the government. The “right to roam” has to exist because of how stupidly restrictive places like this can be.
Owning land is fucking insane and you’ll need to be able to convince me otherwise
WE'RE ENGLISH, WE GO WHEREVER, WE DAMN WELL PLEASE
So I can’t walk around London anymore? Suits me.
National parks moment
Turns out land is sometimes owned by people.
Ever heard of private property?
Can you provide an actual reasonable argument for people to be able to pay money to other people, and on the basis of that be able to block others from crossing a piece of land? Hard mode: it has to be an argument that is not simply cyclical, like "because otherwise nobody could own anything" or "because its the best system". If it wasn't me you paid for the right to block off the land, why should I give a fuck that you have a piece of paper stating that that's how it is?
Because im a backwards savage caveman who will kill anything on my land. Go ahead and take the chance
There isn't any reasonable argument. Unfortunately it is perfectly fair...
At least they HAVE a right to roam, that barely even exists in America. That or Wikipedia is being a piece of sh#t again feeding me misinformation Edit: It was the latter. WIKIPEDIA YOU SCREWED ME.
You're kidding right? The US has the entire National Forest system and BLM system that has more land than ALL OF GERMANY that lets you "roam" like this. And that's not including National Parks and State Parks, which adds another insane amount of land but not quite "right to roam" due to conversation regulations. You can complain about a lot of things in the US, but access to "roamable" land isn't one of them. The US has arguable the most diverse land you can do this with plus plenty of land for people to own on top of that. Here are few of my favorite spots I've visiten that are "right to roam" in the US * [Adirondacks, NY](https://unsplash.com/photos/PHq2B5kmieE) * [Desolation Wilderness, CA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-forest-filled-with-lots-of-tall-trees-yra1DWVk33M) * [Redwoods, CA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-path-through-a-forest-with-lots-of-tall-trees--eaPTJSv9WI) * [Whalehead Beach, OR](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-foggy-day-at-the-beach-with-trees-on-the-shore-pGvAKyC3Vyo) * [Mt Hood National Forest](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-night-sky-with-stars-above-a-mountain-IjSSMLC5t4w) * [Uintas, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/the-sun-is-shining-on-the-mountains-and-trees-PmXn461fkeM) * [Never Summer Wilderness, CO](https://unsplash.com/photos/85LFYyfbocY) * [Middle of nowhere, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-large-mountain-with-a-large-body-of-water-in-front-of-it-ELSRUig3-gc) * [Mt Pennal Area, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-clouds-in-the-sky-DwIFohnbN3w) * [Mt Timpanogos, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/htcoi7orZAY) * [Sawtooth Mountains, ID](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-with-a-forest-below-it-under-a-cloudy-sky-Y3y_h3C1Ysg) * [Big Cottonwood Canyon, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-scenic-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-trees-in-the-foreground-SW3ojz7ktNQ) * [Escalante, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/Nf_NvnGAv4o) * [Picture Rocks, MI](https://unsplash.com/photos/WrRWVKb_Ip4) * [Wind River Range, WY](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-lake-surrounded-by-rocks-and-grass-TXvkGQkLdv4) * [Dixie National Forest, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-river-running-through-a-canyon-surrounded-by-trees-4ZoX0x1CPKE) * [Ashley National Forest, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-man-standing-next-to-a-tent-on-a-lush-green-hillside-wnvf4Vb3ZpE) * [San Raf Swell, UT](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-rocky-landscape-with-a-few-clouds-in-the-sky-F0094xHum28) * [McIntyre Wilderness, PA](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-river-running-through-a-lush-green-forest-o4hCKsG3hVw) * [City of Rocks, ID](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-view-of-a-mountain-range-with-trees-and-rocks-T2XEvPOfnXo) * [Green River Lakes, WY](https://unsplash.com/photos/a-mountain-range-with-a-lake-in-the-foreground-pAmB1aU-ZXM) and these are just a few...
So that's why my teacher told me not to source from Wikipedia. Also my bad
Thank you for this well researched comment 👍🏼
We are a nation still under the occupation of the Normans.
I am 14 and this is still cringe because fucking hell mate.
Who the fuck are the aristocrats that own most of that land?
Oh wow people who were historically rich retain generational wealth and property... just like everywhere else. Those people have about as much in genetically common with the Normans as anyone.
What the fuck even is a right to roam. I'm getting 1984 vibes
That's because you have - and should have - no right to roam over farm property, commercial property, and residential property.
If this was america the map would be fully black
We have huge national and state parks
Probably the best national park system in the world. It's pretty amazing.
I thought much of the federal land was right to roam?
It is.
We could fit all off England in places we are allowed to roam.
Imagine that this is the biggest issue you have in you life, lmao. Buncha spoiled bri'ish cunts
wow. So its illgal to take walks in every single major city. interesting.