Sounds like a good achievement to me. Would private property with a fence but no sign count? I presume so. What about no fence either? Or did I miss the already existing clarifications in my late-night reading... --Thomcat 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I intended it to apply to any geohash where you stopped because of a barrier, sign or even a bad feeling about accessing an area where you were not welcome. I thought I covered it with "Each "no trespassing" geohash you claim should link to an expedition report showing or describing the sign, fence or checkpoint that turned you back," but please edit the proposal to make the wording clearer. -Robyn 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There's always a case of "how to deal with that?" and this time it's 2009-03-08_48_8. Summarized: The first attempt failed because the way to get there was closed for public. However, there was probably a chance to get there from the other side, which, after two hours of getting stuck in snow, I called a MNB. Since the hash was probably in an area where it is illegal to leave ways, but probably very close to a way, I won't ever be able to tell whether it would have turned back to "No trespassing" if I had decided for another hour or two in that mess, unless I go back to visit the coordinates with better weather. Now, would such a thing count for this? What about generally also counting MNB towards that achievement? --Ekorren 08:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is tat MNB is a human failing - "I can't take this any more" or "There's no way I can climb this" or "I'm exhausted and it's going to be dark." It would often be more amazing for you to go on, and there are a number that I look back on and think, damn, I should have given it another hour. But no-trespassing is a human virtue. You COULD have gone on and you stopped yourself. Your "how to deal with that?" expedition you classified as MNB yourself, so that's what it was. I suppose the existence of this collection award might influence some people to classify borderline expeditions as No Trespassing rather than MNB, but in my experience that proclivity exists already, as you'd rather say you were virtuous and stopped out of respect than admit that you let a little thing like a bramble-covered slope thwart you. -Robyn 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I do have to preface this with a disclaimer to remind people to check the laws in their own locations, but there are fences in BC at least that you can legally cross. Crown Land in BC is frequently leased for private use, such as ranching, which requires a fence of the "keep the cows off the road" type. Crown Land is public access, except in minority situations where the nature of the private use makes it better to bar the public. (E.g., for safety reasons when a mine is located on crown land.) In those cases, the restricted access "need[s] to be clearly authorized in the legislation under which the exclusion was made"
And Americans, you can stop snickering at the name now. Yes, Crown Land is legally owned by the monarch, by way of the provincial government.
I strongly support the notion that if you come to a fence and you aren't sure if you can legally cross it, don't. But I've been on marked hiking trails in BC that led right through a barbed wire fence before. I would not attempt that in, say, Texas, where trespassers can be shot. -- Rhonda 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Bear and I usually don't plan expeditions if we think the land will be posted...hence our spotty attempts and not having been foiled by "posted" signs yets. However, we think it's a good idea to reward attempts and respect for private property in this way. And we agree with Rhonda, and use that same philosophy in our planning. We ask that our own privacy be respected, and we treat others in kind. However, 100 attempts is a lot...will it have subdivisions for every 10, 25, 50...? -- NCBears 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that a hundred is a lot. It's supposed to be. The hundred is to make it a long term thing, not a been-there-done-that-now-I-don't-care-and-will-trespass thing. But there's nothing wrong with milestones, like the Centurion. -Robyn 17:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do not oppose. I would even support it, but I don't find it attractive enough currently. But I don't have any suggestions either. -- relet 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do not oppose. -- UnwiseOwl 08:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Support. I feel much better about an attempt that didn't succeed due to No Public Access if I know I'm at least getting closer to the Posted ribbon. Seriously. In addition, it's good to remind the geohashing community to respect other people's property even when no one's watching. Sara 13:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Support. --Meghan 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad to see this was approved. I would guess that >98% of my grat is private property, and while there are many instances where one may get permission, many times it is not an option. I think this will encourage me to attempt a hash even if I am convinced that I will be turned away short when I arrive.--LuxMundi 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)