Camping for example, using Sweden as an example, is limited based on if a person is living nearby, what the land is used for, risk of damage to the environment (land and animals included), sanitation, and government issued exceptions and restriction. In practice most people choose to pay for a camping place in order to be allowed to camp. Place near roads are generally used for farming or grazing (neither allow camping under freedom to roam), nature reserves tend to be generally restricted by the government, and naturally people need a place to park their car for a extended time which is not a right given under freedom to roam.
What that leaves most people is the freedom to camp (in small groups) in the forest when hiking or mountaineering.
The notion that we stay inside during half of the year is funny. Normally foreign media loves to write about children sleeping outside in the winter and all-weather forest kindergartens. And then we have all the german tourists that love camping and hiking.
I understand that it seems strange to hike on other peoples property. It's not that I have to go looking for privately owned property, it's that I can't imagine ever having to keep track of land ownership when I am out hiking, camping, skiing or picking berries or mushrooms.
Tell me you haven’t even visited Sweden without telling me you haven’t ever been to Sweden.
fair to me means "not one inch across my property line"
> fair to me means "not one inch across my property line"
Then the compromise should be that vast wilderness can’t be privately owned.
Easements means the ownership is maintained however access is granted for VERY VERY specific things, (like putting in and maintaining utilities, or transit across ) but can not be used for other things (like camping)
If you don't like that, don't buy property that borders public land.
