Quoted By:
I don't know what it's like in the states, maybe all this talk about security and liability makes more sense there but to me, ruining things for everyone over "muh liability" and "muh property" is literal jew/bugman behaviour.
If it was right behind the place you were building the house it would be another story but we are talking about a tiny goat trail at the very southernmost tip of the property, at the base of a pretty steep embankment by the looks of it. This seems like an "out of sight out of mind" situation.
Also, a fraction of hiking injuries are worse than a sprained ankle, and a fraction of the injuries worse than that will have the victim rushing to press charges. Ever break a leg hiking? Did you think "who can I sue ?". I think that signs and fences informing people that the property has a steward would actually encourage lawsuits desu, vs them thinking it's an uncontrolled natural area. I would gladly accept the possibility of some injury happening on that tiny stretch of trail in order to not ruin a trail. It's such an unlikely risk, why be a total Jew about it?
Inb4 "right to roam hippy"
Where's the middle ground with you guys? You're either a no-ground-given wannabe baron or a dirty communist hippy? What about just being a curtious community member? What about some kids just trying to find somewhere to explore?
OP, wait and see what the traffic is like and how the users are behaving. If they are littering, snooping around closer to your house or if the traffic is just to high imo you have every reason to try and curb it, but if it's like, a dozen hikers a month just respectfully passing through then why mar your natural beauty with ugly-ass fences and signs?
