Talk:Right to access in the Nordic countries

Only Norway?

This should be moved to Norway/Right to access or expanded to include other countries which have this concept. -(WT-en) phma 09:01, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

I agree, and the phrase "Right to access" is kinda confusing-- is that a common term somewhere? (WT-en) Majnoona 10:59, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

I agree too, though consolidating here does create a redundancy problem, sinces all of the scandinavian countries have laws like this (it's also a feature of english common law, though it's been eroded a bit over the years). Still redundancy is better than finding missing the information becuase you can't click the link from the Norway page which you printed out and put in your backpack.. ;) -- (WT-en) Mark 11:06, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

Then maybe it could be moved to a "Right to access" chapter on the Scandinavia page? (WT-en) DhDh 12:00, 8 Mar 2004 (EST)

Editing needed

Needs some editing. It really looks like a discussion on some cases, for example: If 'out of the way' sounds harsh... It's its own paragraph that refers to a paragraph two paragraphs above. /PutBoy

The page says to "..close gates even if you found them open..". Well, here in Australia, we say, " leave gates as you find them.." which seems more logical, if you don't want to annoy the farmer who left it open for his animals' convenience ! Clarification, anyone ? 203.63.143.122 22:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the Australian way is the way to go here also, as reflected in the current wording. --LPfi (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sections that need some work

I think apart from some wording in the lede, the "Quirks" section and the "walking and passing" section could need some attention, up to and including throwing out the old text and writing new text from scratch and/or changing headlines. Furthermore, there are a couple of dead links that should either be removed period or be replaced by their living equivalent. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So, we are steadily getting better on the SEO front here, both through dilution (the other site has 60% copied content while we have 30% on this article) and through new better wording. But the "quirks" section (maybe we should think about a new headline?) still contains an awful lot of copied content. To be precise the entirety of the following "Along many popular tourist roads and spots, there are "no camping" signs. These are there to avoid a heavy impact on areas which are particularly popular, and should be respected. Just go a few hundred meters further, make sure you're out of the way, and you're OK.

Although camping vans are OK, it is generally, if usually silently, frowned upon just parking them in a parking area and staying overnight. Obviously mountains and other extreme areas are paved as little as possible. Parking areas are therefore deliberately a scarce resource, and should be used only for parking, not for camping. If you're using a camping van, use paid campsites.

Note that around some cabins in the more popular mountain regions such as Jotunheimen in Norway, extra limitations have been set up which prohibit tenting up to 2 km from the cabins. This is because campers have used sanitary facilities in the cabins without paying. Many Norwegians believe that these limitations are illegal and so blatantly ignore them (and love to be taken to court to have it struck down). They have not yet been tested in court, however, and as a foreigner you might not want to argue about it, so you might want to comply. If you do camp, don't use the facilities of nearby huts without paying the dues. In short: around most cabins you can camp as close as you want (or in a designated area) by paying a small fee – you then also get access to the cabin's facilities. If you don't want to pay, you'll have to go 150 m away. Around some cabins you will have to go even farther away."

Either we nuke it and write it anew from scratch or we decide it is so great that we keep it even despite the penalty, because I fear lateral ain't gonna cut it here. Or what do you think? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere before, I think we should avoid rewriting for the sake of rewriting, and especially if we cannot come up with something that is an improvement. The text here is not necessarily great, but as it is mostly about Norway (I believe the article was about Norway only in the beginning), I am not going to write it again after nuking, but it could be reworded. --LPfi (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not "for the sake of rewriting" it has two very well defined objectives that must be weighed according to each individual case. One is Search Engine considerations and the other is whether our articles are up to date. It seems to me that if no deliberate effort is put into it, the old stuff gets slowly diluted (sometimes through adding a paragraph with more information, sometimes through a line here or there partially contradicting other wordings) but we as a wiki are reluctant to throw out old text, even if it would be beneficial in some cases. I think at the very least this text could be expanded to focus on places other than Norway Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

A search on "freedom to roam" or "right to access" and "Norway" or "Norway Sweden" gives me this article as second to fifth. If that is the general score, we need not worry about SEO for this article. If it is much worse for others, then I should be very worried about how much info I have let leak to Google. --LPfi (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Using duckduckgo and searching "right to access", that other site is number one and we are not even on the first couple of pages. I don't know the amount of data this service collects, but yes, you should be worried about what google knows about you. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It is OK to make a camp fire, or maybe not in Norway

It says: “It is OK to make a camp fire, but you must not cut any trees”. I Norway the law: Forskrift om brannforebygging have some important exceptions in § 3 (translated):

General requirements for care

Everyone is obliged to exercise caution in carrying out activities that may lead to fire.

It is forbidden to fire or treat flammable objects outdoors under such conditions or in such a way that it may lead to fire. Completed fire must not be left until it is completely extinguished.

During the period from 15 April to 15 September, it is forbidden to fire in or near forests and other land without permission from the municipality. Local government may, by local regulations, waive this prohibition if local circumstances so warrant. It is nevertheless allowed to make fire where it obviously can not cause fire.

If the fire hazard is particularly large beyond the period mentioned in the third paragraph, the municipality may propose to fire or treat fire-hazardous objects outdoors in certain areas. The prohibition may be adopted as a regulation without prior notice and notice pursuant to section 37, second paragraph, and section 38, first paragraph, letter c). The municipality shall ensure that the prohibition is generally known on the spot in question.

A guidance to thise paragraph is fundt her Forbud mot å brenne bål i skog og mark where is says:

The regulation opens for the enjoyment of the bonfire also when there is no snow on the ground. Section 3 says "It is nevertheless allowed to make fire where it obviously can not cause fire". The exception applies, for example, to established places for bonfires and other places that are completely safe. Are you in doubt, it's better to stand over the bonfires.

One shuld be extremely careful, the best is perhaps to only make a camp fire when it's raining?

It also says in the article: “... but you must not cut any trees.” I Norway, nobody will care if you break some dry branches for a bonfire, barely enough on private land. As far as I know, it is only in nature reserves that it is forbidden to break, or pick up branches on the ground, or disturb any natural processes. I don't know the laws in the other Scandinavian countries in thise filds.

Best regards --Frankemann (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have missed the "og annen utmark" (above translated as "other land"). With that wording forests and woods have no special status, which I have been told they have. Non-utmark land is hardly relevant for travellers, as there you would anyway ask the locals. I changed the article accordingly, but have made a mess of the wording. Is it correct now? Feel free to change the wording or improve the text in other ways.

In Hiking in the Nordic countries#Fire the wording is "In Norway, making a fire is generally forbidden from 15 April to 15 September, except at generously safe distance from forest, buildings and other flammable material or on designated sites approved by the fire department." I suppose that is how hikers interpret the law. I do not know whether such an interpretation is due to municipalities granting rights, or just people ignoring the letter of the law.

About cutting trees: I think the wording "Also leave aesthetically or ecologically valuable dead logs alone. Use twigs on the ground and similar instead" clearly hints on quite some leeway for own judgement. I hesitate to give definite advice, as what I would like people to do varies a lot depending on how many people are using the place on one hand and how special the environment is on the other – and the advice I'd give varies depending on how much I trust the judgement of people getting my advice.

--LPfi (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Latvia

Latvia has special law, there is a law that allows passage and picking mushrooms, berries, nuts and weeds (but not camping) in any forested land, be it private or state-owned. Passage is allowed along any river or lake (4 meters wide strip) on private properties. Also, Latvia partly classifies as a Nordic country. Anyone is against including Latvia to this article? Soshial (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because Latvia is not considered a Nordic country on this site, and I think it usually isn't, in general. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

All the Baltic states, and especially Estonia, have some ambitions to be associated with the Nordic countries. However, there are big differences in history, culture and languages. I think we shall not call the Baltic states Nordic unless they get full membership of the Nordic Council.

When it comes to right to access, even Denmark is not included in this article (other than as a mention and link). There are many countries with similar rights, mostly more restricted than in the four countries this article covers.

The more exceptions we have to cover, the less useful is the article. Now we can say that you can roam freely away from developed areas (in Norway; utmark), and we'd need to say "except in Latvia, were you are confined to a 4-m strip by lakes and rivers", and you can camp anywhere some distance from the nearest house (200 m in Norway), except in Latvia, where you must use commercial campsites.

We also have the problem that few editors know both the right to access in Nordic countries and in Latvia. Wilderness backpackers from Finland, Sweden and Norway all roam the Scandinavian fells and have probably noticed most of the differences, we have contributors from the three countries, and I can read Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian. Iceland is a bit problematic in this regard, but I feel it is important to be able to include it (and I think Snævar has read and approved the wordings). I am not sure we have any user from Latvia or fluent in Latvian, and we'd need somebody acquainted with the right both in Latvia and the Nordic countries for being able to explain the Latvian tradition in terms that would not be misunderstood when compared with the Nordic tradition.

What we'd need to do is to have a separate article on similar rights in Scotland, Germany, Switzerland, ... and Latvia. For Latvia, a section in the country article would be a good start.

–LPfi (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much LPfi for your elaborate answer. I completely agree with your viewpoint. Soshial (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

As a side note Right to access applies in some form in the other Baltic countries (Estonia and Lithuania) too. I'm not an expert on the topic however, though I did start up Hiking in Estonia a few years ago inspired by and using a tourist brochure about the topic and some googling. Ypsilon (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured Travel Topic?

The article has quite a lot of information. Maybe it's comprehensive enough to be nominated and featured as a FTT? Ypsilon (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a good article. However, we have many Nordic articles coming up, and most of them are scheduled for northern summer. Also, we have plenty of travel topics nominated. We could nominate it, but it would probably have to wait until 2024 to fit into the schedule. /Yvwv (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is the main "problem" with the nominations right now, there's not really space for new nominees... --Ypsilon (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Native proofreading requested

This article has lots of information, but the language feels heavy to read. I would be happy if a native English speaker could proofread and improve the language. /Yvwv (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not native, but I will try to simplify prose. Already done a little in the intro, please have a look if it works. Erik den yngre (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Focus on costs

Right to access of course has consequences for costs, but right to access is not really intented as a free option. The point is not to avoid commercial accomodation services. This is a common topic in Norway during the high season: many visitors misunderstand or misuse the right to access thus annoying the locals or breaking the rules. https://www.nrk.no/nordland/campingturister-slo-opp-telt-pa-jorde-pa-nordnes-i-sortland-1.16468369 https://www.nrk.no/nordland/vekket-turister-som-campet-pa-kirkegard_-_-de-syntes-det-var-jeg-som-var-frekk-1.13062476

I will weaken this point in the intro, Erik den yngre (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Natural parks

The article now says:

The right to access does not apply in natural parks and nature reserves.

This is not correct for Norway. Nature reserves (naturreservat) may be closed parts of the year such that birds and animals are not disturbed, but the main rule applies. "Natural park" is not a concept in Norway. National parks are utmark and fully open to the public with regard to hiking and camping. Erik den yngre (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Naturpark was the term I learnt as a child for nature reserves, but perhaps easiest to skip that. In Finland right to access in practice applies also in most national parks and nature reserves, but (if I've understood correctly) only because the equivalent rights are – usually – explicitly granted in the law on the national park (for them, there is always a law) and the rules of the nature reserve.

I tweaked your changes somewhat. I hope I didn't lose anything.

–LPfi (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Private land

I agree that private vs public land is generally not relevant to the right to access. But I think it is useful to point out that right to access does apply equally to private land, this is unfamiliar for many visitors for instance from the UK. And perhaps even more important: Visitors should be aware that they are guests on the land of a real person (not a vague government agency). My family owns a chunk of forest, valley, lakes and rivers. Hikers are welcome, but there is no doubt visitors are guests in "my home" and should behave accordingly. Erik den yngre (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It is important to point out that the right applies also to private land, but there is a specific reason I don't want to emphasise the owner as an individual: the land of the Sámi is regarded state-owned (I think there are some legal processes about that in Sweden, but at least in Finland it is the governance, not the ownership, that is under debate). In the duoddarat, I am a guest on land that is home to a Sámi community, even if the land is "owned" by the state and governed by Metsähallitus. (There are also other arguments, but as Sápmi is so important for hiking, this dominates.) –LPfi (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, understand (Finnmark is the only area in Norway where the government owns most of the land with special rights of reindeer keeping Sami), but I think it is still a good idea to communicate the notion of guest. Visitors using right to access are expected to behave as guests: don't take or break anything, don't leave garbage behind, etc. From what I have seen, some visitors don't behave as guests (if such guests where in my house I would not invite them again!). Erik den yngre (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. –LPfi (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Nudity

I am a bit surprised about the recently added warning about getting nude. Most people from other countries would be much too shy in the first place, and who would get nude in company with locals who remain dressed? If you go swimming nude by a deserted shore and some locals happen to appear, then that would mostly be their problem in my book – they don't need to look at you, when getting ashore you would swiftly get to your towels and nobody would get offended. In what context is a foreigner likely to appear nude in a way that would offend locals? Finns in a Swedish sauna? –LPfi (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I could agree that nudity would be contextual even within a single Nordic country, and might not be the highest risk for provocation outdoors, compared to other legal but foul manners mentioned. /Yvwv (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

In Norway public nudity is perfectly legal, and swimming nude in the wilderness is in general no problem. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

You are only expected to be considerate. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to remove the warning about nudity. Most visitors from overseas are more shy than Nordic people, so I dont think it is an issue. Even "partial" nudity, such as naked upper body for male is in southern Europe not acceptable in town but perfectly OK in Norway. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Docks and outdoor furniture

I know that using private jetties is not allowed in Finland. I am a bit surprised if docks are treated otherwise. If there is private outdoor furniture, I would tend to count the place as part of the yard (and thus protected by domestic privacy, i.e. off limits). Does this differ between countries? Is it common to use private docks for mooring and swimming or could be just skip this paragraph? –LPfi (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

In Norway, private docks and jetties are not utmark so no right to access there (not even walking or bathing). Erik den yngre (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Some beaches in Sweden outside yard spaces are owned by condominiums (samfällighet) which means that the right to access applies. The owners tend to put up furniture such as benches, football goals and playground swings, which in themselves are private property. This is under debate in Sweden, in particular around Gothenburg and Stockholm. /Yvwv (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

In the most populated areas, docks/jetties in conjunction with houses may block movement along beaches, in that case hikers in Norway are allowed to walk across a private dock. Erik den yngre (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The right to domestic privacy doesn't extend to common spaces of condominiums (at least not in Finland). I would not hesitate to walk there and take a look, unless there are no trespassing signs or other hints. I still wouldn't moor there other than very temporarily, as there may be other boats coming and I don't know the local rules (I very much doubt the right to access applies to mooring at a dock). Neither would I swim there, as that might be very unsafe. Whether I would consider using the furniture depends on the feel of the particular place (difficult to give that detailed advice). –LPfi (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

In practice, lots of people in Norway walk on private areas and nobody cares. But remaining on a private dock or using private furniture for swimming, sunbathing or even camping overnight is clearly not OK in Norway. Erik den yngre (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That might be because innmark is so widely defined. Here the right to access applies on most private land except private yards, and I suppose you don't want strangers to cross yours regularly. Anyway, I'll remove the paragraph now, with no prejudice on a better wording. In Finland, the cases you need the paragraph for are too few to be worth the hassle of explaining them. –LPfi (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)