So, I'm photographing covered bridges (91) in the state of Indiana. Many bridges in rural areas have property owner fencing adjacent to the roadway with no trespassing signage in clear view. There intent is obvious...stay the hell off my property. But here is the thing; there is a ten foot right of way on both sides of the road, and they are eliminating access with their fencing. The dilemma: obey the signage, or assert your right to public access. To get to the waterway to photograph the bridge, I need access. I assert my rights. Additionally, some prohibit access to the waterway the same way...but here is the thing, they do not own to the shore line, only to the high water mark, which is defined by flooding. Knowing the law, I assess the situation and determine how bad I want that waterway view of the covered bridge, and act accordingly. I know the law, and I know my rights...but, I don't know the hostility that could come down on my head. I take a pocket full of money, and if necessary, I'll buy my way out of hostility, and I walk away with the shot! Got to have guts, determination, and a clear view of what you are doing. Navigable streams are owned by the state. Having fun but being cautious also. Get the shot!

So, I'm photographing covered bridges (91) in the state of Indiana. Many bridges in rural areas have property owner fencing adjacent to the roadway with no trespassing signage in clear view. There intent is obvious...stay the hell off my property. But here is the thing; there is a ten foot right of way on both sides of the road, and they are eliminating access with their fencing. The dilemma: obey the signage, or assert your right to public access. To get to the waterway to photograph the bridge, I need access. I assert my rights. Additionally, some prohibit access to the waterway the same way...but here is the thing, they do not own to the shore line, only to the high water mark, which is defined by flooding. Knowing the law, I assess the situation and determine how bad I want that waterway view of the covered bridge, and act accordingly. I know the law, and I know my rights...but, I don't know the hostility that could come down on my head. I take a pocket full of money, and if necessary, I'll buy my way out of hostility, and I walk away with the shot! Got to have guts, determination, and a clear view of what you are doing. Navigable streams are owned by the state. Having fun but being cautious also. Get the shot!

Just curious. If the fenced strip of land has been done so for more than 10 years can the landowner in Indiana claim adverse possession on that portion of land even if it’s a public road? If so would he not be able to post the signage you describe? Also how do you determine whether the waterway under the bridge is navigable. From where I come from there are different rules/regulations on whether a waterway is navigable or non-navigable. The location Property limits on either of these waterways are usually quite different. As to the location of the high water mark of a stream it is in most times questionable with a whole slew of requirements. There is no simple answer and In a lot of cases the true determination is left up to the courts to decide. In fact a lot of the times this location can be clarified to some extent by speaking to the adjacent land owner especially if they have been in the area for a extended period of time.
Like I said, am just curious as to what is what in your neck of the woods. I know what is what where I live.

LittleRed (Ron)

So, I'm photographing covered bridges (91) in the state of Indiana. Many bridges in rural areas have property owner fencing adjacent to the roadway with no trespassing signage in clear view. There intent is obvious...stay the hell off my property. But here is the thing; there is a ten foot right of way on both sides of the road, and they are eliminating access with their fencing. The dilemma: obey the signage, or assert your right to public access. To get to the waterway to photograph the bridge, I need access. I assert my rights. Additionally, some prohibit access to the waterway the same way...but here is the thing, they do not own to the shore line, only to the high water mark, which is defined by flooding. Knowing the law, I assess the situation and determine how bad I want that waterway view of the covered bridge, and act accordingly. I know the law, and I know my rights...but, I don't know the hostility that could come down on my head. I take a pocket full of money, and if necessary, I'll buy my way out of hostility, and I walk away with the shot! Got to have guts, determination, and a clear view of what you are doing. Navigable streams are owned by the state. Having fun but being cautious also. Get the shot!

So, rather than me explain ownership to you, visit your local county assessor, auditor, or county surveyor, that although your property goes to the middle of the county road and you pay taxes on it, the county has a right-a-way that supersedes your "bundle-of-rights" as a property owner. They are legally responsible for the road and right-a-way, not you, and they maintain the road, pave it, snow removal, mowing the grass in the right-a-way, all of which you are not responsible for because their rights supersede yours. They have complete control, and your only right is to pay taxes on it, and have the same use as every other citizen. If you know the county attorney speak to him/her about this issue. Right-A-ways are public.