[wesleyd]

Maine has right to roam, kind of, in a very american way: you can assume you have permission, unless clearly indicated otherwise. This preserves property rights, but only if you want them. Also there is a strong presumption of zero liability for the landowner (AFAIK!), so landowners aren't particularly incentivized to close off their land.

All thanks to the hunting lobby, I expect.

[ryandrake]

Yea, I think the liability thing is key, at least in the USA. I have no problem in concept with allowing the public to roam on my property (as long as they're not taking or damaging things), but I wouldn't want to allow it if they could sue me and win because they tripped on a rock or something.

[ghaff]

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. I assume that if you trip on a rock or a tree root on a trail on someone's land, suing would be a man bites dog thing--but so could any number of events. Obviously if you deliberately put some hazard of a trail crossing your property, that could be different. (Though probably edge cases--tricky natural hazard on a well-established trail you didn't do anything about.)

[volkl48]

Also the case in New Hampshire and Vermont. And at least in NH there's some tax incentives for leaving your land unposted/open to that kind of access.

[nkurz]

Do you know more about the tax incentives in New Hampshire? I'm in Vermont, and wondering if there are established patterns that would work for our town.

Edit: I'd love to hear from anyone elsewhere that offers such incentives as to how they are structured.