
Why people keep trying to erase the Hollywood sign from Google Maps (2014) - c0riander
http://gizmodo.com/why-people-keep-trying-to-erase-the-hollywood-sign-from-1658084644
======
miclip
Similar issue in Sausalito above the Bridge. Wolfback Ridge Rd is a publicly
maintained road yet they have a gate and sign that says otherwise. It is
strictly enforced by Sausalito Police on behalf of residents. There's some
great short hikes up there that offer excellent views of the Golden Gate
Bridge and headlands.

Even google didn't dare go up there:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8512481,-122.4911711,3a,75y,...](https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8512481,-122.4911711,3a,75y,263.37h,91.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8AcNzesT4PvEUxpLMGA0DA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

Granted you can hike up Sunrise trail from the next exit but it's a tough hill
for the elderly. Friend of mine got one of those hard to remove stickers put
on their car for taking her mother up there.

If you ask the city they'll spin crap but confirm that it's open to public
when pushed for an answer. If you drive up there guaranteed someone will
confront you and the police will show up soon after.

Taxpayer funded gated community for the politically connected.

~~~
aurelius12
I was really curious about that, as I live in southern Marin and have wanted
to go up that road before. Are you sure it's a public road though?

I found this:
[http://sausalito.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_...](http://sausalito.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=190&meta_id=22327)

On page 2, there's a line that says, "Wolfback Ridge Road is a private road
maintained by the Wolfback Ridge Association, a neighborhood homeowner’s
association (see Exhibit R for Association information)"

I can't find exhibit R, but the person who sent it appears to be a resident of
Wolfback Ridge, leading me to wonder how legit the info is.

~~~
miclip
I have emails from the city saying otherwise, I'll try and dig them up. I
believe it's publicly maintained as it was resurfaced along with the rest of
the town a couple years back when we lived there.

I also doubt the Wolfback Ridge Association paid for the bridge over highway
101 that's exclusive to them. There are radio towers (SFO?) up there but you
can access along the fire roads from Tennessee Valley.

Edit:

Found it, response from Director of Public Works:

 _Not as simple a question as you might think… Short answer is that a portion
of Wolfback Ridge Road is publically-maintained. For purposes of hiking, you
and anyone else can probably access from the State of California right-of-way
(at US 101) to the trails at the top of the pass anytime and not have an
issue. Vehicular access is restricted at certain times of the year by
Sausalito PD – Fleet Week and the Fourth of July based on lack of parking,
lack of adequate circulation and inadequate turn-around. If you want more
legal details, let me know – I’m researching the area for a development
application anyway…it may take awhile though._

They have a point regarding events but if you park where he suggests you'll
run into issues.

~~~
aurelius12
Oh, I'd love to see those emails if you can dig them up, thank you! If I'm
confident that it's a public street, I'm going to go hang out on that street.

------
azernik
The attempt to turn public property into the property of the locals reminds me
of a similar, non-tech-related case, also in LA - Malibu beaches.

According to the law of the state of California, all beaches are public
property. Of course, this gets a bit complicated when an individual owns the
land in front of the beach. The people who buy houses in Malibu would, of
course, prefer to have a private beach section. So they put up gates and hire
security guards (illegally), block public parking spots (either physically or
by putting up counterfeit "no parking" signs), etc. They've historically
gotten away with it because the enforcement agency is underfunded and the
enforcement process is expensive (a separate civil lawsuit for each offender).
That may change soon though:

[http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-coastal-
penalties-20140...](http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-coastal-
penalties-20140630-story.html)

~~~
arethuza
I found an interesting here in Scotland not far from Edinburgh - there are
some really nice beaches and a large estate with golf courses and high end
housing immediately inland from the beaches. Between the beaches and the
houses there is a very large green metal fence which stops all access from the
properties to the beaches.

My initial reaction was how unreasonable it was for the developers to build
such a fence to keep people out of their development. Then I noticed that
there are no gaps in the fence and, on doing some research, found out that the
fence is there to keep the house owners off of the beach!

I'd be a bit annoyed if I spent £1M on a house overlooking a lovely beach only
to find that I'd have to walk/drive 8km or so to the other side of the
fence...

~~~
huhtenberg
But what would be the reasoning for not having gates in this fence?

~~~
arethuza
The coast there is part of a protected "Site of Special Scientific Interest"
(SSSI) and the beaches in question are sufficiently far from normal access
points that they are remarkably quiet. A condition of the developer being
allowed to build houses was apparently that this didn't improve access to the
coastline - hence the fence. You can see it here:

[http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102036](http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102036)

Edit: Keeping up my secret work for Visit Scotland - I can recommend the walk
to the beaches from Dirleton:

[http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lothian/dirleton-
fidra.shtml](http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lothian/dirleton-fidra.shtml)

~~~
logfromblammo
I would guess that at least a few of the home buyers fully intended to "alter
the deal (pray I do not alter it further)" after the developer sold off the
last parcel and exited.

~~~
arethuza
I'd expect there to be conditions in the sale that would enforce this - also
the landowner in this case would be appear to be the business that runs the
surrounding golf courses and hotel, so they're probably not going anywhere:

[http://www.archerfieldhouse.com/](http://www.archerfieldhouse.com/)

I would also expect the relevant government agency (possibly Scottish National
Heritage) to take a rather dim view of anyone breaking the conditions of
planning permission.

Edit: I'd expect the people who buy houses directly from the developer to be
told about this. However, I can imagine years from now someone buying one of
the houses overlooking the beach (NB they are lovely houses) and getting a
nasty surprise when they ask about where the gate is in the fence.

~~~
logfromblammo
Or they don't ask, and buy semi-permanent sea access for the bargain price of
one angle grinder, some unassuming hinges, a latch, and a can of matching
green paint. I'm assuming that most of the home-buyers would be Scots, after
all.

The folks on the other side of the fence are certainly Scots with an interest
in public access to Archerfield Woods from the coastal walking trail.

I very much doubt that such a fence would be patrolled or otherwise monitored
well enough to prevent rogue gate installation from happening.

If this was in the U.S., the same people cutting holes in the fence would
simultaneously be posting signs saying "no public beach access" and blaming
the holes on outsiders bent on ruining both beach and neighborhood. The zoning
and development board would quietly be enjoying their kickbacks from the
developer, and winking every time the fence got mentioned.

They know that fence isn't going to last. It's only there so that no one
starts a protest until after it's too late to be effective.

~~~
arethuza
Actually, as far as I can tell one part of the planning agreement was for the
developers to fund a ranger to help monitor the area - probably one of this
lot:

[https://www.facebook.com/East-Lothian-Countryside-Ranger-
Ser...](https://www.facebook.com/East-Lothian-Countryside-Ranger-
Service-139367542929212/)

~~~
logfromblammo
The captions on these photos tell a bit more of the story:

[http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35182](http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35182)

[http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1247442](http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1247442)

[http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102054](http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102054)

There's also a wiki entry
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archerfield_Estate_and_Links](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archerfield_Estate_and_Links)).

So on further examination, It looks increasingly like this is an American-
style gated community for the wealthy, and that the new home-owners probably
wouldn't even know what an angle grinder is, much less which end was safe to
hold. And on further examination of the fence, one pair of bolt cutters and
enough time to make 20 unmolested snips would be sufficient to restore the
previous state of the locals' Allemansratten
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)).

There's also this amusing article: [http://www.scotsman.com/news/pub-tycoon-
hit-by-new-fences-ba...](http://www.scotsman.com/news/pub-tycoon-hit-by-new-
fences-ban-1-974763#axzz3r1R4LXrZ)

And this: [https://www.scotways.com/court-cases/181-archerfield-
access-...](https://www.scotways.com/court-cases/181-archerfield-access-case-
update)

~~~
arethuza
Pretty sure that court case is for a different fence - the one in the Geograph
pics is new and completely isolates the Archerfield estate from the sea. Even
when the estate/hotel has properties right on the coast there is this fence
(without a single gate) between them and the coast - along which there is a
public path from which you can get a good view of the fence....

NB It's not really a gated community in that access to it from the landward
side is easy - you just walk or drive in.

------
rmc
OpenStreetMap, of course, has correct and accurate directions on how to drive
or walk to the Hollywood sign.

e.g.
[https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_...](https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=graphhopper_foot&route=34.1067%2C-118.3307%3B34.1341%2C-118.3216#map=14/34.1208/-118.3220)

~~~
bambax
I'm behind a very stupid and extremely annoying corporate wall (McAfee Web
Gateway) that blocks OpenStreetMap, but not Google Maps...

~~~
mywacaday
Im also behind McAfee Web Gateway and have access to OpenStreetMap, its up to
whoever maintains it in your corp to unblock

~~~
bambax
Yeah I'm sure someone could unblock it, but I doubt they blocked it in the
first place on purpose: OSM must be in some default list when McAfee Web
Gateway is first installed, and that's probably the root of the problem...

------
briandear
Misleading the public doesn't solve the issue. I live inside the medieval
walls of a historic French town and we are 'overrun' with tourists. However,
despite some of them being rather inconvienient, it isn't like I have the
right to shut down the street in front of my house to prevent the intrusive
traffic that makes it difficult to even exit my garage. I knew about this
'issue' when I bought the house. And, even if I didn't, I don't own the city.
It's a shared resource. It's the reason we elect local governments -- to
prevent special interests from dominating an issue. Government isn't always
effective, but in cases like these, it exactly the purpose of government.

So instead of blocking a tourist 'trail,' folks on my little goat-path of a
street appealed to the city to assist with enforcement of existing parking
regulations. They even erected some barriers to prevent blocking my garage.
However the tourists still have the freedom of access while still making it
workable enough for residents.

But blocking the street, breaking GPS or any other vigilante response wouldn't
be appropriate because there are more interests in this town than just my own.

The key is to work together to balance interests in a way that is reasonably
harmonious.

These Hollywood residents, blaming stuff such as a dog being squashed by a car
on tourists are being a bit ridiculous. The dog was in the street. The fact
that it was (allegedly) a tourist car that did it is irrelevant and is really
just a cheap propaganda play. If the cars prevent fire trucks from access,
that is something that could be handled at a city planning level and not by
some residents that seem to think they are traffic engineers.

~~~
pif
Hello, anyone caring to explain why this post is being downvoted?

~~~
andy_ppp
The downvoting here has been ridiculous for a while now... I think posts with
lots of upvotes and downvotes should be marked as interesting rather than bad.

Or are we aiming for blandness here?

~~~
_0ffh
Yeah right, people will downvote without comment for having a different
opinion. I've been told this was intended behaviour, but not exactly why.
Happens to everyone, I suppose.

I've recently been voted into the lighter shades for calling out questionable
ideology in an article. Even though it was not even a popular news item, I got
at least eight or nine downvotes, and still ended up at +2 after waiting a
day. That's because other people who read my comment decided to upvote (or at
least anti-downvote), as I am wont to do when I see this kind of thing going
on.

I also think, you as viewer should at least be able to choose if you want to
order by "goodness" (upvotes-downvotes) or by "controversiality"/"interest"
(upvotes+downvotes).

~~~
morganvachon
There's no such thing as a perfect comment moderation system, and I've seen
worse than this one. That said, I've seen far, far better as well. Ultimately
this forum exists to serve the interests of the Y Combinator founders, and as
long as they don't see anything wrong with perfectly coherent, intelligent,
and on point comments being downmodded into oblivion in every single topic,
well...what can you do?

Thankfully there are a handful of us here who will upvote to counter the "for
the lulz" type downvotes even if we don't always agree with the point of view
of the comment itself, but I've noticed this forum (like all Internet forums
eventually do) is slowly succumbing to the lowest common denominator crowd.

~~~
andy_ppp
You got downvoted for this originally! Ironic downvoters, I applaud you :-)

------
HorizonXP
So I have a story about this.

Back in 2007, my friends and I were at a 4 month co-op internship at Qualcomm.
One weekend, we decided to drive up to LA from San Diego.

We drove as close as we could to the Hollywood sign, and got to a cul de sac
where we saw a few cars parked, and a few families hiking down a hill from the
sign.

We parked, and walked up the hill, noticing a sign that said it was illegal to
hike to the sign. We questioned whether it was a good idea to ignore the sign,
but seeing as whole families were ignoring it, we thought it would be fine.

We hiked for a few minutes, and then saw a security guard pull up in a car
near our cars. I wasn't sure how legally I was parked, so we went back to
avoid a ticket.

The guard ignores all the families, and targets us, asking us what we were
doing hiking up there. We said we just wanted a picture, and he yelled at us
about the sign. We said we didn't see it, and he called us idiots. He asked to
see our IDs, at which point, my friend started talking back, saying no way.
Being that we were Canadian, and on work visas, I didn't want to push my luck,
being a minority too. I knew that if this guard called the cops, I'd be in a
bit more trouble, and I thought I'd be in jeopardy of getting shipped back to
Canada. It didn't help that the friend mouthing back wasn't a minority; I
don't think he realized how scared we are in general of cops.

My friend kept mouthing off, saying that the guard had no right to talk to us
like that, and we were going to leave. At this point, the guard says he's
calling the cops, and that we have to deal with them.

At this point, I jumped in, asked the guard to calm down, and that I'll talk
to him privately. He told me to tell my friend to watch his tone, and I
pleaded with him to let us go, since I really didn't want to deal with the
cops over something minor on account of us not being American. He copied down
my info from my license, gave us a warning, and let us go.

Now, I did know my "rights", and I knew he had no grounds to detain us. But I
didn't know those signs were fake, so I really thought we might be in trouble.
Also, I didn't know if those rights applied to us as non-Americans. My friends
said I was an idiot for giving my ID, and I agreed, but I just wanted to get
out of there. I was 22 at the time too, so I probably was a bit more naive.

Reading this article brought back this memory, and now makes me realize how we
were bamboozled. Live and learn I suppose.

------
adam-a
I may be missing something, but why don't they build a car park and widen the
road? Surely it's a lot easier than trying to stop people going to one of the
most recognisable landmarks in the world.

It's definitely worrying that major tech companies are willing to alter their
maps at the request of a few wealthy individuals.

~~~
sschueller
Exactly, they could turn this into a beautiful destination with parking etc.
Charge a small fee to pay for maintenance, close after 6pm. Everybody is
happy.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Except people who want to visit at night. You know that'll happen.

~~~
kuschku
Then allow them to go at night and put some street lights up the trail. Also
not impossible.

~~~
FireBeyond
The problem is not providing better access. That's what the populace might
want. The residents, who are already happily interfering and obstructing,
illegally at times, don't want that, and certainly don't want the idea of
'night access'.

~~~
kuschku
The problem is providing better access without limiting access for the police
or fire men.

So you need to provide a parking lot and a dedicated trail to make sure people
can reach their goal (seeing the sign in person) without going through the
neighborhood itself.

------
adekok
A large corporation accedes to the wishes of a rich elite, and helps them deny
access to a _public_ park? Say it ain't so...

I wish there was some company around which had a motto of "Don't be evil". I'm
sure _that_ company would have done the right thing.

~~~
michaelt
Generally, the relationship between a map company and the local government
isn't adversarial. If the government tells the map company "the speed limit of
this road is x" or "this bridge has a height limit of y" or "this road is
access-only for heavy trucks" then the map company will just take that as
true.

After all, if you can't trust the posted signs because of residents putting up
fake signs, what is the canonical source of information on what's legal?

If the local residents have got the local government to change the legal
status of the roads, which is what the article makes it sound like, you can
hardly blame Google for doing what the government tells them to do.

------
frogpelt
Everybody hates tourists and it's hilarious.

You live in a place that exists because of and is sustained by tourism and yet
you hate all the people who come there and spend money.

Here's an idea: move to a place that tourists don't like.

~~~
maxerickson
I'm pretty sure the Hollywood Hills aren't leaning real hard on the tourism
industry.

~~~
FireBeyond
I'd expect that a not-insubstantial portion of the residents of the Hollywood
Hills have made their living/fortune directly or indirectly from the movie
industry.

That's neither here nor there. People want to see an attraction. It's on
public parkland. The residents, whatever their motivation, do not have a right
to prevent that. They could petition the city for better access (hell no, they
won't do that), or policy change. Instead, they use connections and money to
do things like:

\- illegally threaten tourists with the use of fake signs threatening civil or
criminal sanctions \- personally harass visitors \- hire security guards who
have been told to threaten people with trespass and arrest, illegally

Just like David Geffen's famous 'fake driveway'. Amazing how everyone in
Malibu knows that it's not a real driveway. That he had no right to paint the
curb red or yellow indicating fire lanes, etc. The police know it. The towing
companies know it. Yet, every week, they book, ticket, and tow someone who
also knows it (there have been cases where people have parked there with a
print-out of the whole saga pinned to their window, to prevent the usual
story, which is "well, we know it's not real, but you didn't and you parked
there, so you were ignoring the law").

My sympathies are ... lacking.

------
chdir
Reminds me of lombard street [1]. It can be pretty tiring for the residents to
see a constant barrage of tourists, stopping their vehicles on the street to
take pictures. Imagine leaving or returning home at "peak tourist hours", how
difficult it would be to drive your car near your home. I guess the burden is
on a home owner to figure out what they are walking into when they buy a house
near a popular tourist attraction.

Oh, and there's also the Martins Beach case [2].

[1] :
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lombard+Street/@37.802189,...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lombard+Street/@37.802189,-122.418144,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1s442916!2e1!3e10!6s%2F%2Flh3.googleusercontent.com%2Fproxy%2F_PY35bVZAGkyxeYY0BCF72LKnMgUBhpgBZda3pCd4PICkqvKXkYAk5Z707p0m9vza18L01loByAfO2sCNiXDDIVoAevnR-I%3Dw114-h86!7i2048!8i1536!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x10d3ce0ac1ec1299!6m1!1e1)

[2] [http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Billionaire-must-
allow...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Billionaire-must-allow-public-
to-access-Martins-5778533.php)

~~~
knodi123
During one portion of the year, my neighborhood has small hordes of visitors
due to a large wildflower field across the street. Mostly I find it charming,
and my worst confrontation involved telling a guy "Hey, please don't park on
my lawn", and him replying "oh, sorry, I'll move immediately".

I don't see why seeing people taking pictures of a landmark in your
neighborhood should be tiring.

~~~
smackfu
Usually it's because it has some impact on you. Like blocking your driveway,
taking up all the parking, or leaving trash.

------
JustSomeNobody
On the one hand I can kinda feel the pain of the homeowners. When my neighbor
recently had a yard sale, I basically had to sit in my driveway telling people
to not block it in case I had to get out. Some would actually try and argue
with me. So, I know how selfish and stupid people can be sometimes.

But, selfish and stupid works both ways. The homeowners near there can't deny
people right of way on public streets. They can't put up fake signs/paint.
This isn't right either. The best you can do is just try and keep the idiots
off your own property.

~~~
donatj
You couldn't just ask them to move if/when you did actually have to get out?

People don't spend usually more than a few minutes at yard sales and it sounds
to me like you were just being unreasonable.

If you were so worried you might need to leave at an absolute moments notice
(doctor on call or something?) why not just park in the street yourself?

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Seriously? Look, it is plain rude to park directly in front of someone's
drive. There's no two ways about that. I should not have to be go and park my
car somewhere else because people can't be bothered to not be rude.

I have plenty of property in front of my house that they could have parked
(it's 25 extra feet they would have had to walk). That's what plenty of other
people were doing. There's plenty of open space on the other side of the
street as well.

~~~
gburt
You are being unreasonable. The grandparent is correct. Any parker would've
left in less than 5 minutes. You would not have even known they were there. If
they did not leave and you needed out, you could have simply asked them to
leave.

Property rights in this strange absolutist never-to-be-violated interpretation
would make a hell of a world. Dropped your wallet? WELL, I CAN'T PICK IT UP
FOR YOU BECAUSE THAT'S THEFT OF YOUR PROPERTY.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Actually, not picking up the wallet would be considered rude.

This isn't about property. It's about manners. I'm sorry the sequence of
events that has led up to your life at this moment prevent you from
differentiating.

------
logfromblammo
I have to wonder why more residents aren't trying to milk money out of the
tourists. Isn't that what is supposed to happen around every tourist
attraction?

If I lived there, I might just pave a few extra parking spaces into my
property and charge $5 for first 30 minutes and $5 each additional 60 minutes
thereafter. Buy lemonade, hiking maps, souvenir magnets, and postcards from
the kiosk. 10%-off coupons for checking in on social media. Hey! Hey! Hey
mister; hey lady! You wanna buy Hollywood Sign t-shirt? Hollywood Sign
keychain fob? How about shopped photo with your name in place of the real
sign? Don't just take selfies! Everybody takes selfies! Buy something no one
else has; buy this volume-printed diorama of the sign and surrounding park,
signed by the artist! Limited edition!

Whenever I have been a tourist, the single best way to make me want to leave
and never return is to subject me to a continuous barrage of sales pitches for
useless attraction-related crap. Example: every square centimeter of Disney
World. That's like the ultimate goal of merchandising, when it all sort of
collapses into this state where everything becomes an advertisement for
itself, and everything you buy subtly encourages you to buy more, or maybe
just put all your cash in a paper envelope and deposit it into a slot under
the Walt and Mickey statue.

That's how you ruin an attraction. You don't just make it secret and
exclusive; that only makes people want it more. Instead, you relentlessly try
to squeeze every last drop of money out of it. If you really want the people
to stop coming, your Holy Grail is the online review that says, "Not worth the
$10 parking space in some guy's front yard. Locals aggressively sell touristy
crap, and the sign itself seems kind of cheap and pathetic from up close."

Of course, the downside is that unless you have some sort of "identify friend
or foe" system in place, you get a dozen sales pitches every time you walk
from your own driveway to your own house.

~~~
HelloMcFly
The people that own those houses have enough money that it isn't worth the
time investment to make a little extra cash, even if the side benefit it
ruining the experience. That's a hell of a time commitment.

~~~
logfromblammo
Your Poe's Law handheld disambiguator device should have read about 75%
insincere on my ancestor post.

I am fully aware that a NIMBY neighborhood, such as the one near the sign,
would actually tar-and-feather the first person who tried to treat the
invading tourists as anything other than vermin to be eliminated.

I was simply making a _modest proposal_ , to contrast against the actual
efforts of the local homeowners to discourage tourist traffic.

For instance, a while ago, I agreed to go with my family to Grand Canyon
national park. I had but one condition: under no circumstances would I be
asked to buy anything at any gift shop filled with touristy crap, nor even be
requested to enter one. _And guess what happened._ We still spent over three
consecutive hours in a thrice-cursed gift shop, wherein I was asked repeatedly
to buy junk of the lowest quality. That was more time than was spent looking
at the actual canyon, for which there was no additional charge beyond the cost
of park admission.

That kindled a great fight, which everybody lost.

More recently, we visited New Orleans. My sole condition of the pre-trip
planning was "No French Quarter." _And guess what happened._ My
matrifornicating in-laws wanted to eat dinner at Hard Rock Cafe. On deity-
despised Bourbon Street.

So I find that the single most effective way to make me passionately hate your
locale and avoid it like an Ebola-infected bat roost forevermore is to make it
into a _tourist trap_.

------
ableal
_" Because our mapping services are now subject to the whims of angry,
powerful residents, we have to rely on other sources to give us accurate
directions. In a way, the post on my blog is almost like passing out hand-
drawn paper cartography from person to person, a map to buried treasure that
hangs in plain sight."_

Samizdat internet ... even literally, according to Britannica: _' (from
Russian sam, “self,” and izdatelstvo, “publishing”)'_

~~~
pfooti
Hmm, I always just thought it was a corruption of "same as that". I guess your
way makes more sense. And yeah, I could have looked at wikipedia a long time
ago.

------
protomyth
I have a lot of sympathy for people when some new things moves into their
neighborhood and causes a disruption. On the other hand, I have about as much
respect for these people, since the sign predates them, as I do for people who
move next to farms and try to shut them down because of the smell. I think
there is a special place in hell for people who alter data on public spaces.

------
jschuur
Reminds me of a recent video I watched about the copyright issues associated
with the sign:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdQ7gxU6Rg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdQ7gxU6Rg)

------
rplnt
> then—in something I’ve never seen before, anywhere on Google Maps—a dashed
> gray line arcs from Griffith Observatory, over Mt. Lee

Uhm, Google Maps do this all the time if there is no route to the place you
selected. I'd say I see it every time I use the routing feature by hand or by
entering GPS coordinates, i.e. not when I write an address down.

~~~
megablast
Another example would be great!

~~~
yaur
[https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Liberty,+NY/Rocky+Mountain,+...](https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Liberty,+NY/Rocky+Mountain,+Shandaken,+NY/)

Of course unlike the Hollywood sign, this is a place you wont be able to get
to without a good map and some back-country navigation skills.

------
jarsin
Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is not
considered the same as a violent threat?

Whats the difference between that homeowner saying "hey i am going to break
your kneecaps" vs "hey I have more money than you and am going to destroy your
life with legal action." \- which is what he was implying in his email

~~~
dragonwriter
> Why is it in our society threatening to sue someone doing nothing wrong is
> not considered the same as a violent threat?

Because it isn't a threat of violence. OTOH, it can be an unlawful threat, as,
e.g., extortion. [1]

[1]
[http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/hynes101...](http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2009/hynes101.pdf)

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Every law is backed by violence. A threat of legal action is a threat of
violence, even if it is delayed.

So instead of breaking knee caps, it is more like threatening to get a person
who may charge them $500 and if they don't pay, then break their knee caps.
There is a chance they won't do anything, but it is still a threat of
violence.

~~~
jarsin
Yes this is exactly what i was getting at. If you take the stance that every
law is backed by violence essentially.. AND you now say you are going to use
the law to get someone to stop doing something that is perfectly legal and OK
such as posting a helpful blog on the internet...

Then to me these people are no different from the types of people that
threaten to harm you to get you to do what they want.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
>AND you now say you are going to use the law to get someone to stop doing
something that is perfectly legal

Why does it matter if it is legal? Illegal only means that the group in
control at the time thinks violence is acceptable to stop the given illegal
action.

For some actions there will be mass agreement, such as making murder illegal.
For others, there often is far less agreement and maybe even mass
disagreement, such as sodomy, which was illegal even into the beginning of the
21st century, or pot.

That the action is legal or not doesn't have much bearing on the underlying
issue.

And just to be clear, anarchy isn't a solution because there will always be
those wanting to use violence to enforce their will. So banding together and
creating a stronger entity that has a monopoly on violence is the best option
even if not a good one. Especially when you are a significant enough minority
that the group doesn't care about your input or when the monopoly becomes
corrupt and no longer follows the will of the group.

It is kinda like a predator out in nature. They have to kill to survive.
Either their prey dies or they die. There is no solution where both can live.

------
jbob2000
I visited a few years ago and found the whole state of California was like
this. "Shoo shoo dirty tourist, move along!". Locals upset and frustrated at
tourists. Paris is like this too. I moved out of downtown Toronto for this
reason; people coming and going with no respect for the locals who call it
their home.

------
lips
And they can't rent bikes, create a locally-staffed concession area, sell
tchotkes, and pull some $$$ out of the tourists? Tourists gonna tourist, and
might as well beat them at their own game, and put the money back into trail
infrastructure, and then take the cream off the top for local services.

------
don_loemax
I live in Beachwood Canyon and I honestly don't mind the visitors, I think we
forget we are a NYC stroll away from the hollywood strip and this is all part
of being in a major city. The setting (quiet, tall trees and lush gardens and
winding hilly roads and the absence of cell service) makes it easy to forget
but we are still in the city and not some gated suburb.

------
scelerat
The recommendation to go to Lake Hollywood for a view of the sign instead is
an odd one. The access road to the reservoir is even _more_ twisty and narrow
than Beachwood Canyon.

------
ant6n
How about they just create an official parking lot that has a good view of the
sign for the tourists, to funnel them all there.

------
cozzyd
What does Apple Maps do?

~~~
coolnow
It gives you directions to Hollywood, Worcestershire (UK).

------
ramisama
does anybody know what's the current situation of this? I'm going to LA in a
few weeks and I would like to know if I can get to see the sign.

~~~
alphaoide
I drove to the address 3204 Canyon Lake Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90068 mentioned
in the article about 2 months ago. That's a really good spot I can recommend.

------
smegel
I've never been to LA, but now I know.

