Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Natuurpunt

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Natuurpunt

[edit]

These information boards clearly aren't the uploaders own work and there's no reason they would be freely licensed. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's unclear how the FOP rules for the Netherlands apply here. 2D artworks are covered, but maps (which are contained in some of these billboards) are not, so how to handle that? PaterMcFly (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The country where these information boards are located is actually Belgium, and if you had of looked into it before commenting you would have noticed that Natuurpunt is a non-profit environmental organization that maintains private nature reservations and the standard for FOP in Belgium only applies to "locations that are permanently accessible to the public." I would assume private nature reservations are inherently excluded from that due to the whole "privately ran by a non-profit" thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the property might be private, it's still possible that there's public, round-the-clock access. That would need to be checked, though. Apparently, there's at least some access to the public there, otherwise one woudn't put up information boards. PaterMcFly (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It be possible there is public, round-the-clock access, but it's extremely unlikely given we are talking about private nature reserves, which usually aren't open 24 hours a day, and the suggestion that they must be open round-the-clock because they put up information boards is totally ridiculous. All kinds of locations that aren't considered public places in Belgium have information boards. For instance public museums. You clearly have no clue what your talking about or how the law there works though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Duisburg Neerijse 01.jpg is on a public path along an ancient vicinal railway route (Category:Remains of tram route 296). This part is never closed of and there are no barriers. See location. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all reserves maintained/managed by Natuurpunt are privately owned. In fact Natuurpunt manages several reserves owned by the Flemish government. It also manages pieces of land that the Vlaamse Landmaatschappij (part of the Flemish government) (There's a VLM logo on a couple of those boards) rents from farmers. Etc. MLTRock (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. That's fine. I have zero problem with the closing administrator keeping the image. Although it would be good if there was some indicator of that in the file description somewhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: On the one hand you claim this whole thing isn't personal, but then on the other you can't seem to not insult me in every other comment or repeatedly participate in things that you clearly have no clue about or wouldn't have anything to do with otherwise just because I'm involved in them. Why not just admit your axe grinding? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, do not make things personal. It is just that your DRs are plain nonsense, and I would answer the same to anyone else.
It seems you never visited a natural reserve. In most cases (I would say 99%), there are no fences around, and no checkpoints. Vehicles are probably not allowed, but you can walk in without any checking or paying any fee. Some activities are usually not allowed (camping, fire, picking flowers, etc.), but photography is permitted. Yann (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, do not make things personal You have to at least admit that calling something I've explained multiple times in as many places "nonsense" is rather condescending and insulting. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's foolish or has no meaning.
It seems you never visited a natural reserve. I actually live a couple of miles from a couple and visit them pretty regularly. Nice try though.
Photography is permitted. Sure, I don't doubt people are allowed to take pictures of random objects in private nature reserves. Just like no one probably cares if someone takes random pictures inside of a museum. That's not the issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader says there is no restriction. Certainly s/he knows best. Your objections are not based on any fact, that's why I call them nonsense. It is only your personal opinion, that's precisely the issue. Yann (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked the uploader just said they aren't privately owned, which is clearly nonsense. Regardless Smiley.toerist described some restrictions in the DR below this one. Who do you think has more incentive to tell the truth between the two of them? And how exactly is it my "personal opinion" that they control access when there's barriers, fences, signs restricting people doing things and accessing certain areas of the nature reserves, parts of them are closed off seasonally, and there's enforcement through patrolling? That sounds like a pretty text book example of somewhere having "control access" to me and your only response seems to be ignoring it and the other evidence I've provided while deriding the whole thing as personal, opinionated nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official rules for nature reserves in Flanders (where the photos were taken) can be found here (in Dutch): https://natuurenbos.vlaanderen.be/toegankelijkheid-en-activiteiten/toegankelijkheidsregeling-voor-uw-natuurgebied-beheerders/overzicht-goedgekeurde-toegankelijkheidsregelingen FrDr (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the basic rule in Flemish nature reserves is "principiële toegankelijkheid": in principle, accessible for people on foot on all official paths. (https://natuurenbos.vlaanderen.be/toegankelijkheid-en-activiteiten/wat-mag-u-doen-onze-natuur-bezoekers). For Flemish nature reserves not owned by the Flemish governement (ANB), but owned by other organisations (such as Natuurpunt), there is sometimes (not always) a "toegankelijheidsregeling" (a map + text which shows which paths can be publicly accessed (they can be found here: https://natuurenbos.vlaanderen.be/toegankelijkheid-en-activiteiten/toegankelijkheidsregeling-voor-uw-natuurgebied-beheerders/overzicht-goedgekeurde-toegankelijkheidsregelingen) FrDr (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Although it doesn't answer my question and I'd still like one from either you or @Yann: . How are barriers, fences, signs restricting people doing things and accessing certain areas of the nature reserves, parts of the reserves being closed off seasonally, and enforcement through patrolling not "controlling access"? You can't just claim there isn't controlled access because the nature reserves are in principle accessible for people on foot along specific paths during certain times of the year and under particular conditions. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if there a legal difference, but museums, zoos, attraction parks, have gates where you cant get past without a ticket. That is whole different level of acces control. In many countries there enclosed public spaces such as public parks in the cities, wich are closed for the nigth. They are still public spaces. Another thing is the definition of 'private'. Natuurpunt is an non-profit organisation with a lot public members and one of the objectives is to provide public acces to nature. I dont know the situation in Belgium precisely but there are also state organisations wich manage nature areas. Dutch state management of forest I dont think there is a hard link between the type of ownership and public areas.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Translated citation of Natuurpunt website: Nature has a place in everyone's life. As an association, we therefore provide nature 'for everyone', so that everyone has access to nature in the neighbourhood. We therefore make it a point to open our areas to visitors. In doing so, we are always looking for a balance between nature conservation and recreational co-use. We also stand up for nature and biodiversity outside our nature reserves.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: That's fair. At the end of the day all I can do is look at the evidence, compare it to the guidelines, and see what other people think. You mention that the difference is that museums, zoos, and attraction parks have can't you get past without a ticket though. this is an entrance to one of their nature reserves. There's certainly a gate though. Although people can go around it, but that's not really the point. This is an entrance to another one. It's clearly gated off and there's a fence around it, as can be seen to the right of the gate. Averbodebos nature reserve, clearly has fences and gates. What about Maldegemveld nature reserve? Oh, that ones fenced off to. Burreken? Also fenced off. Although it looks like the gate is broke, but you get my point. So how is that any different then museums, zoos, or attraction parks that have gates and fences people can't get past? And remember, the standard here is not just "access" but "controlled access." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could also be a pathway (or shortcut) that is closed of or not to be used, while other entrances are facilitated. One clue is there is no welcome panel, or any forbidden signs. In Belgium you walk any path if there is no sign forbidden it. That it is closed of for cars is normal. One does not want any illegal garbage dumps. Many of these of parcs have many entrances and you walk trough on a long hike.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could also be a pathway (or shortcut) that is closed of or not to be used Sure, but closed pathways are still "controlled access." So I don't really get what your point is. Regardless, you can speculate that there are many entrances to these parks, but I looked at at a lot of them on Google Maps and they really don't. Those are either the only and in most cases main entrances. Like I wouldn't have thought of that or accounted for it before nominating the images for deletion or I need to be lectured about how nature reserves work. Wait, people use nature reserves for illegal dumping? No really? Who would of thought! --Adamant1 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Flanders and also near sun domain managed by Natuurpunt. There are sometimes fences at the entrances but that is often to regulate passage for cyclists and pedestrians. There are also closed domains where it looks like it is closed but that can also be to keep the grazing animals inside because these nature domains are sometimes next to the city like the one I live near. The parks are always accessible as far as I know, the only reason they are sometimes closed is stormy weather but then often all public parks are also closed. Many of the domains managed by natuurpunt are also not private but owned or financed by the Flemish government. So the domains are actually always accessible, the only thing natuurpunt does is maintain them with the support of the Flemish government. It's not that natuurpunt can restrict access to these parks because they receive subsidies from the Flemish government and so they just have to keep these parks open to the public. 81.244.197.228 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no resolution I started a discussion in the Dutch Wikipedia Village Pump Discussie_over_openbare_ruimte_in_België. Maybe some legal experts can bring clarity.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Belgium has FOP, which applies to all public accessible places. These signs are placed in public accessible places. --Romaine (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Natuurpunt

[edit]

These information signs clearly aren't the uploader's own work and there's no reason they would be freely licensed. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Belgium has FOP these days ({{FoP-Belgium}}) and looking at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Belgium#Freedom_of_panorama it looks like it covers these. Public places and graphic works.
Looks like the similar deletion requests Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Egmontkasteel, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tourist signs in Bruges, Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tourist signs in Liège & Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Tourist signs in Sint-Truiden have already been closed as kept. I don't see any reason to have a different outcome for this one. Multichill (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: I'm not going to get in an argument about it, but these signs are located in privately owned nature reserve and the guideline clearly states "the provision was intended to apply to locations that are permanently accessible to the public, such as public streets and squares, and that the provision was not intended to apply inside of public museums." If a public museum doesn't qualify for FOP in Belgium because it's not sufficiently accessible to the public then I don't see why a private nature reserve would. Otherwise I'd be interested to know what you think the difference is.
And as far as the previous DRs go, if you read through the ANU complaint related to this user Yann clearly doesn't know what they are talking about and closed them out of process. They also related to different types of places BTW. So I don't think it's valid to claim this should be closed based purely on the other deletion requests. I'm probably going to renominate some of the images in them for deletion anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A public museum has controled access (for most of them you have to buy a ticket), and is monitored. Most private nature reserve (also Natuurpunt) have public acces without any manned checkpoint. There are barriers to prevent cars driving throught and rasters to prevent hoofed animals escaping, but nothing to prevent people walking through. There are often only signs forbidden some things. Some areas are closed in the breeding season. Enforcement is through patrolling. (very infrequent). So in practice it is considered a public space.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are fences, barriers, and enforcement through patrolling not "controlled access"? I'd say a private nature reserves are permissive, the same way say a mall, grocery store, museum Etc. Etc. is. But that's different from "permanently accessible to the public." I'm sure you can't just mob up in one during the middle of the night and do whatever you want to without the patrol kicking you out. That's a text book definition of "controlled access." Just like anyone can walk through a shopping mall during normal hours, sit around if they want to, but they still have the right to kickout whomever they want for whatever reason they feel like. Ergo shopping malls are not public places. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those fences are often not te keep people out of the park but to keep animals in the park, where I live there are some sort of cows? grazing inside the park and the only fences there are to keep them inside. The parc is public space Natuurpunt receives massive support from the flemisch government to keep those place open to the public. They need to keep those places clean. Nothing monitored with the parc near me from Natuurpunt, they sometimes organize guided walks trough it but at anytime you can access it. Even when its storms and the government says you cant access them there is nothing that physical prevent you from entering. 81.244.197.228 20:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Kept: Belgium has FOP, which applies to all public accessible places. These signs are placed in public accessible places. --Romaine (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Natuurpunt&oldid=875005366"