To start with, the official law enforcement, and park maintenance is managed and facilitated by the state, payed by the tax payers.
Secondly, the associations like the one mentioned above, although making use of the resources of their members, are in part being bankrolled by the state. So, again, payed with tax payers' money.
Thirdly, the association, labelled an association of public benefit, should fit the following definition: "Elle n'exerce pas d'activité lucrative. Sa gestion est désintéressée. Elle ne fonctionne pas au profit d'un cercle restreint de personnes", or, after loosely translated:
1) It should not be profit driven
2) Its management should be selfless
3) It should not function at the benefit of only a restricted group of people.
And it this case, it sure sounds like point 2 and 3 are put in doubt with their patent and intellectual property fighting nonsense barring open maps from including their paths.
Beyond a recognition for the time and effort invested in the maintaining of the markings on the hiking trails they trace, it really looks like a disproportionate and misplaced application of intellectual property rights.
And taking into account that a lot of tax payers' money is making the entire endeavour possible, it would make some sense to return a bit of that value back to the tax payers by making the markings available for free in openly accessible maps.
To start with, the official law enforcement, and park maintenance is managed and facilitated by the state, payed by the tax payers.
Secondly, the associations like the one mentioned above, although making use of the resources of their members, are in part being bankrolled by the state. So, again, payed with tax payers' money.
Thirdly, the association, labelled an association of public benefit, should fit the following definition: "Elle n'exerce pas d'activité lucrative. Sa gestion est désintéressée. Elle ne fonctionne pas au profit d'un cercle restreint de personnes", or, after loosely translated: 1) It should not be profit driven 2) Its management should be selfless 3) It should not function at the benefit of only a restricted group of people.
And it this case, it sure sounds like point 2 and 3 are put in doubt with their patent and intellectual property fighting nonsense barring open maps from including their paths.
Beyond a recognition for the time and effort invested in the maintaining of the markings on the hiking trails they trace, it really looks like a disproportionate and misplaced application of intellectual property rights.
And taking into account that a lot of tax payers' money is making the entire endeavour possible, it would make some sense to return a bit of that value back to the tax payers by making the markings available for free in openly accessible maps.