Laws pertain to everyone, regardless of where you are from. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. Thanks for reading my post. John

Navigable waterways are ones that you can navigate with a boat (deep enough year around water depth). Property ownership for navigable streams is the high-water mark on the shoreline. Non-navigable streams have property ownership into the middle of the stream (private ownership of creeks, streams, and drainage ditches). Rivers are generally navigable. Creeks are not. If a covered bridge is over a "river by name" or a "creek by name" you know what ownership and property rights folks have, or think they have. Adverse possession of land (fencing) is never applicable to publicly owned property (right-a-ways).

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.

Exactly!

Thanks for your (I read your post and understand it) response. John

It's really a county issue...the county highway department. They just ignore it. When it comes time to maintain the bridge (painting the exterior, roof repairs, structural issues, they effectively trespass to access their own public owned property. The fencing prevents them from access, just as it does me. They know it, I know it, and the adjacent property owner knows it also. No one is going to do anything about it. I stay within the legal right-a way and access the bridges to get my shots. I am aware of the potential repercussions of my actions. If I encounter a property owner, he will be educated by me. I have a 45 year career in real estate as a certified general real estate appraiser and have worked for multiple governmental agencies with these type of issues. Thanks for reading my post.

Madison County, Indiana, doesn't have any covered bridges. I read the book several times and have seen the movie just as many, and as disappointing as it is, there are no bridges to match the book or movie in Indiana.

not
You can not fence a county right-a-way. A right-a-way is 20" front the center of the county road. It is often referred to as a shoulder. People do it because they are not challenged by the county government...and they won't be unless someone complains and shows cause for removal. Government officials are elected, and as such, they do not want to interrupt the status quo. This doesn't make it right, it's just the way it is, but, it doesn't make it legal. So, I know the issues...I dealt with them professionally for years, and that is why I am somewhat adamant about it. No problems so far and I am half way done with the bridges. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has already inquired about select photo's for their own use, so I could use that as purpose for my photography. Interesting pursuit.

People are asserting rights that they simply don't have. I am bringing that fact to the attention of the readers of this post. I don't need condescending responses.

Crimes of violence have severe penalties!

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!

If it says "auto pay" or "automatic renewal" I simply don't buy.

There is something nostalgic about photographing old structures like barns. I am photographing Covered Bridges in Indiana, and sense the same excitement that I am sure you have in your barn assignment. There are 92 Covered Bridges in Indiana, and I am 1/3 of the way to completion; hopefully by the end of summer. Your photos look awfully familiar as there are many similar subjects in Indiana. Thanks for posting. Nice photos.

I am photographing covered bridges in Indiana. I have my D850 16x35 lens set on auto ISO. Why? Because I shoot the inside and outside of the bridges, in shade and sunlight, and don't have to concern myself with shutter speed with auto ISO. Inside of covered bridges is very dark. I only concern myself with composition and subject matter. I leave the rest to the camera and lens. Works for me. My photos look great even in unprocessed RAW.

Very impressive. Thanks for posting.