Miscellaneous desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 11

FLA Lotto

Does anyone know what TV station in Southwest Florida broadcasts the results of the Florida Lottery live? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to their (very clunky) website, one of these. Nanonic (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, the only station it mentions for Fort Myers, Florida is the Spainish one... PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I drive to the Drake Passage?

Is something like this practical? I live up by Canada and I've been thinkin about takin a drive from here to the southern tip of South America. I havent left yet cause of concerns about liscence restrictions, terrain, and corrupt police. Any advice?--Troy da truck driver (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not so difficult, you get onto the Pan-American Highway and head south. So long as you have a passport and visa requirements, a decent car, a decent phrasebook and enough money, you should be just fine.... except for the Darién Gap, where you will need to investigate other means of transport. Tim Cahill's Road Fever (Vintage. ISBN 978-0394758374) [1] or this site [2] might be worth reading for more specific advice. Rockpocket 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have personal experience of being held up by armed bandits at roadblocks in the mountains of Guatemala twice in the same night. We had been warned not to drive in the mountains at night, but one of us became very ill on an earlier part of the journey and then, suddenly, it was night and we were still hours from Lake Atitlan. A very fluent speaker of Spanish at the wheel of the VW bus, and $20 U.S. per passenger (we were five) did the trick each time. If you stick to major routes as Rockpocket has suggested, and don't drive at night, (and don't do any of the other silly things that get tourists in trouble, like flashing money, jewelry, electronics or even trendy clothes, or leavng your vehicle unlocked or parked in a deserted area, or running out of gas because stations are often widely spaced or . . .) then you could have a wonderful trip. Oh yes, and don't ever argue with the guys in uniform at border crossings, whether or not they carry guns. If the sign says the entry fee is 20 quetzals/pesos and the uniforms say $20 US, just pay the $20; don't even think about complaining until you get home, unless you really hate your vehicle and would enjoy seeing it in small pieces scattered all over the customs' parking area. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the answer is no, you can't drive from North America to South America. There is a thing called the Pan-American Highway, but it consists of two separate parts. The Panama-Colombia border area is jungle with no roads, so you have to bypass that gap by by air or sea travel.

You might find Paul Theroux's 1979 memoir The Old Patagonian Express interesting, although he did not travel by road, but by train (which involved air travel in several places to bypass gaps between railway systems). --Anonymous, 07:33 UTC, January 11, 2009.

You may be able to get through the Darién Gap via an All Terrain Vehicle, but it won't be easy. Useight (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the route is mostly complete and tarmaced except the Darrien gap. But, if you are not too much the "purist" wanting to stay exactly on the route, why not look into driving to Panama City and getting a ferry (one that will take your vehicle, obviously) to Buenaventura, Colombia or to Esmeraldas, Ecuador. To pick up the southern section of the Pan American: From Buenaventura you can drive ~100 miles to Cali. From Esmeraldas you can drive ~200 miles to Quito and avoid the security problems in Colombia. These links might be helpful.

Note: I have not checked the quality of the seaport -> PAH routes (ie. they could be dirt roads - but consider they do connect major seaports to major cities so are presumably heavily travelled by trucks) and I have not checked whether the ferries I suggested are still running. Astronaut (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Darién Gap is extremely dangerous and difficult to cross. A few vehicles have done it, perhaps fewer than ten. Each had all-wheel drive and probably lots of replacement gear, because there is no road, there is a jungle, and the terrain is rough. Each vehicle that made the expedition took several weeks to make the crossing. Presumably you would need a machete or power-saw at times. Then, you have to be concerned about poisonous snakes, parasitical infections, and armed rebels who have bases in the Gap. Many who have attempted to cross the Gap (mostly on foot) have ended up dead. Still want to try it? Unfortunately, the ferry from Panama to Colombia is no longer in operation. You can arrange to have your vehicle shipped from Panama to Colombia on a container ship for $1000–1500 and then make the sea crossing by special arrangement with one of several private cruise ships (often under sail) that carry tourists on that route for around $500. Or you can sell your car, book a cheap flight, then buy a used car in Colombia. Marco polo (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further, I spotted another place where you might encounter difficulty continuing your journey in South America. If you arrive at the wrong time of year, you might find the route through the Andes, particularly the Paso Libertadores and the Cristo Redentor Tunnel, closed due to snow or rock falls.

You might also find driving much further south than Ushuaia rather difficult due to a lack of roads. Of course, you could hire a boat to take you the last 100 miles or so to Cape Horn and the Drake Passage. Astronaut (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are bedspreads for?

Made beds in hotels are usually if not always topped with bedspreads, but I've read somewhere that you should always remove them because they are dirty. What exactly are they supposed to be for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.98.136 (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original purpose of a bedspread was to keep the blankets free of dust and grime (if follows, then, that the dust and grime that would be found on blankets, are on the bedspread!). I suppose they also developed a decorative purpose also. Rockpocket 04:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockpocket types faster than I do. (After ec) Bedspreads are principally for decoration (helping to bring the room "together" under a colour scheme), tidiness (all the lumps and edges of pillows and blankets are disguised under the single line of the spread) and, sometimes, warmth. The spreads and blankets are not washed as often as sheets and pillow cases because they do not touch the skin. Unlike blankets, however, which are usually protected by the sheet below and the spread above, the bedspread is often in contact with bums (clothed or otherwise), along with suitcases and bags, damp towels, even shoes and unwashed clothes. In a private home, I wouldnt worry about it. In a hotel, I peel down the spread until I can at least keep a flap of sheet beween my skin and it at face height; the rest doesn't matter much. If you are really concerned, you can ask to have the spread changed. How you will know that it has also been cleaned before you get it, I don't know. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the idea that, like a lot of fussier domestic items, bedspreads are a Victorian thing. If that's the case, it would make sense that they are to keep the other bedding clean. If you look at the sections on daily cleaning in Mrs Beeton, the amount of grime settling out of the air onto everything in the house must have been staggering. The cause, presumably, coal fires in almost every room and gas-lights emitting their combustion products straight into the air. So a bedspread that covered up the bed most of the time, catching the airborne crud, would have made a lot of sense. PeteVerdon (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bedspreads are a plot device so that the body in crime thrillers can be wrapped in something when it is sneaked out of wherever the murder took place. The hospitality industry are big movie fans but they may have taken it a bit far.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shady...

How does Forex Microlot make any money? On their FAQs page, I searched for their commission and the link said that they don't have one. That is, a $0 commission. It makes me wonder - how does their website even make money? It sounds like a great deal, but that "no commission" thing makes it a bit... shady. Sounding too good to be true. Can someone explain this, or at least give a testimonial saying that they don't 100% rip you off? flaming lawye r^c 07:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched "free websites" and there are many but I still didn't find what their source of income in apart from advertising. Me too would like to know the catch(es). Julia Rossi (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be they get it out of the spread. They offer better rates for small volume forex trades than e.g you'd get if you traded Dollars to Euros at your bank. They deal in large volume trades, tough and don't quite pass on the excellent rates that they enjoy. They just don't heap on the extra charges your bank gets away with. They may also live off the interest they get out of investing the money. It's amazing how many extra pearls you can get if you play a shell game with shoving money around. As we've seen with some recent collapses see Bernard Madoff it gets dangerous when things turn into a ponzi scheme. In this case even checking credentials and records didn't help. The best thing still seems to be the old wisdom of not putting all your eggs in one basket.--76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small musical instruments

What musical instruments would could be practical enough in size to backpack around with excluding flutes (and variations) and the harmonica?.. And perhaps something that's at least a little bit challenging too... Thank you 81.41.106.63 (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jew's harp and kalimba. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you could try spoons for percussion (Not as easy to learn to play well as it sounds. You need at least two.) Or a comb. Both have the advantage that you can put them to other uses without extra luggage. If you are crafty or have a friend who is my personal favorite is still a travel dulcimer travel dulcimer {Holy smokes they want how much for that thing??) It's basically a fretboard with strings in a box that you can carry it in and that serves as sound chamber when you play it. [3]--76.97.245.5 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A small Concertina perhaps. I also recently saw a small band in a bar in County Clare, Ireland, in which the octogenarian percussionist played a small wooden box (and sometimes the table) with a pair of drumsticks - perhaps not so good on its own, but it sounded good with the accompaniment of guitar and whistle. Astronaut (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the size of your backpack, a ukulele, or charango might work, maybe even a small mandolin. A pocket trumpet, piccolo trumpet or soprillo would be quite challenging to play (and the latter quite expensive). Years ago I backpacked through Europe to Northern Africa carrying a soprano sax (it wasn't a very valuable one, so I wrapped it in cloth instead of using the comparatively bulky hardcase). Smaller and less challenging: a kazoo, a nose whistle, dozens of small percussion instruments. Are you planning on learning the instrument while traveling? Do you wish to busk while you're at it? A few years ago, I heard a street band using nothing but little toy instruments, from toy piano to honking horns, melodicas, slide whistles, etc., all in primary colors ... ---Sluzzelin talk 15:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two dessert spoons.86.194.250.243 (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)DT[reply]

Ha ha. How about clapping (challenging enough in flamenco) or other body percussion, then? How about beatboxing or other vocal percussion? Or how about just singing? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the ocarina. Just be careful you don't play the wrong tune. Matt Deres (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the ocarina. They look cool and are a good conversation starter. ("Gee, what's that thing your playing? It looks like a sweet potato with holes in it!") They come in different sizes with different voices. The sound is mellow and does not carry through the wall to the neighbor's to the extent that a miniature brass instrument . You could also learn how to make one out of any handy vegetable or fruit like broccoli, or a carrot. A concertina would also be cool. Edison (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of the ocarina, but 81.41 specified no flutes or variations thereof. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could go techno and try the Kaossilator. It looks both unique and challenging. APL (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pocket theramin - under $20 worth of parts and a few hours of work! Theramins are certainly challenging to play well. SteveBaker (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The C.F._Martin_&_Company backpacker? Page 29 of catalog [4]. (5.5 MB)--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

following on Milkbreath's Jew's harp, there's a delightful performance of London Bridge. Awww. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jew's Harps are not musical "Bew baw bow bow" besides being hard on the jaw teeth. If the ocarania is too flutelike, then stick with the concertina. Edison (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although mentioned above tersely, I would second the kalimba (and mbira) idea. These are quite small instruments that not only sound nice and are fun and easy to play, but also require little to no maintenance, such as tuning strings. For "backpacking" they have the additional benefit of being hard to damage. You could throw one against a wall with little effect. They are a bit on the quiet side, but that could be a good thing too, depending. The only other "real" musical instrument I know of that combines smallness, easy playability, pleasant sound, and robust strength, is the harmonica. Pfly (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good suggestion - I looked at the two articles and they say that both the kalimba and mbira are varieties of Lamellophone - and THAT article has a "See Also" section with links to dozens and dozens of articles about other small, portable instruments of a similar kind. Our OP would do well to look through them. SteveBaker (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you still get Stylophones ? Yes you can!GreenSpigot (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving

What do Americans do at Christmas? Since everyone seems to meet family and friends for Thanksgiving, do you all make the trip again for Christmas, or do you do something else? Aren't you sick of your families by then? 80.229.160.127 (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We often see them again, but sometimes the Thanksgiving guests stay put this time, and their erstwhile hosts go to them. And, yes, I'm sick of them. I start out sick of them, but bear in mind that we can get a lot farther away from them between times than y'all can stuck on that little sceptered isle. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another option, especially for married couples or those with divorced parents, is to go to one family's house for t-giving and the other for xmas. Note, this is often the case where one set of parents lives far away from the other set. Many times I've heard of people having an "early xmas" at t-giving. Dismas|^(talk) 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, sometimes some of us do grow weary of our families by Christmas. In some cases, Thanksgiving is for the "extended families" (grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc.), while Christmas is for the small nuclear family (just mom and dad and the kids). — Michael J 18:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Americans have Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners in the same place every year, but these days I think that it is more common to have Thanksgiving in one place and Christmas in another. Some people will spend one holiday with extended family and the other with immediate family on a tropical island or at a ski resort. As Dismas says, many people visit one partner's family for Thanksgiving and the other partner's for Christmas. Obviously, some people are happier to spend time with their families than others. Marco polo (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some it also depends on how much time you can take off from work. Turkey day is on a Thursday (US) and you only need to take Friday off to get 4 days in a row. If you have to travel far you can leave work early on Wednesday and then have some time to recover till you have to travel back and start work again. X-mas often is just one day (Christmas day) off. In many jobs, leaving early on Christmas eve isn't an option. So you tend to stay closer to home for X-mas and do the red-eye for Thanksgiving. There are also loads of people here who don't celebrate Christmas.76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. is a blended society. In New England, the Pilgrims and their like celebrated Thanksgiving and ignored Christmas as a pagan fest. The rest of the U.S. celebrated Christmas and ignored Thanksgiving. Around the time of Lincoln, both came to be celebrated by the nation. Edison (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us love our families, and would very much wish to spend more time with them. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Property Tax

What county of the state of Florida, has the lowest Property Taxes? I was in search of a guide to property taxes for the state of Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlaplante (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very first result in the google search for the term "Property taxes in Florida" returns this link: [5] which appears to contain several links to property tax information by county. Cheers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not so easy to find this table of property tax rates by Florida county in 2006. I did not find anything more recent. According to this table, Monroe County had the lowest county-wide property taxes in 2006. However, school districts, municipalities, and other jurisdictions may levy property taxes in addition to the county tax. According to the table, the county with the lowest total average property taxes in 2006 was Franklin County, but the actual rate within Franklin County would depend on the jurisdiction, and there are almost certainly places in Franklin County that have a higher property tax rate than places in other counties. Marco polo (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USN Band airplane crash in South America

Sometime after WWII the USN Band was on a tour of South American countries. The band was to fly to somewhere during this tour and the airplane crashed, maybe into the Andes. Some of the band on the tour did not go on the flight. Maybe had another performance. My guess is in the 40s or 50s timewise. I'm looking for details, location and dates.138.88.236.190 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://shipmatelog.com/plaque_pull.php?search=yes&loc_code=10G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.45.233.23 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

planecrashinfo.com puts the accident one day later. Perhaps its maintainer used the date of a news report rather than the date of the crash. I'll email him to point out the discrepancy. --Anonymous, 00:13 UTC, January 12, 2009.

Bullfighting - several questions I can´t find answers to anywhere else....

I am currently in southern Spain on holiday and am interested in seeing a bullfight. However, I am shocked at the seemingly exorbitant cost of a ringside seat in the shade at around 95 euros. In the local Malaga Bullring there are enough seats for 14,000 spectators that equates to some 1 million to 1.4 million euros per Corrida (3 bullfight teams each fighting 2 bulls). Any responses as to why it is so expensive as against say a ticket to a First Division English Football Match would be appreciated - and what would a good Toreador (the one who actually faces up to the bull and eventually usually kills it) be paid? Thanks in anticipation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.50.120 (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but if one doesn't turn up here, you might want to have a look at Lonely Planet's Thorntree forum. A first search turned up this for starters. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the usual economic principles, such an event will charge whatever it can get to achieve its own goals. Those goals might be (1) a full arena (at a lower price, perhaps, depending on the popularity of the sport); the most revenue (higher prices that still give more revenue even if the arena is not full). Then there is the further principle that, for non-essential things (and what could be less essential to those not personally involved than a bullfight?), one charges whatever the market will bear. (You might whip over the mountains of a Sunday and check out the Mijas bullring. It will be considerably cheaper, even in the shade. Up in the mountains, where it is located, and this being January, I would risk the cheaper seats in the sun.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster's arithmetic is suspect. If 95 euros is the price "a ringside seat in the shade", presumably there are other seats at significantly lower prices, so the total gross will not be as large as 95 × 14,000 euros. --Anonymous, 00:17 UTC, January 12, 2009.

There's also the fact that the "wear" on the "material" is a lot higher in bullfighting. Bulls [6] can not be reused for the next performance. I didn't look for data on the likelihood of getting killed playing First Division English Football. I would assume though that an enraged bull will more often kill a matador than an enraged player of the opposing team killing a soccer player. (In soccer one expects both sides to survive the game, in bullfighting it's either, or, or neither.) Since bullfighting has come under fire by animal rights activists it does no longer draw as many crowds as it used to. Many corridas report diminished incomes and quite a few have closed or reduced the number of performances. (Sources are is Spanish, so I didn't put any here. if you read Spanish you can google it.) Since they still have running overheads it's not surprising that ticket prices are steep. --76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The price of the ticket will depend very much on the matador (not toreador). The big names are like the big teams in football. The matador has to pay his team and other costs so it is difficult to estimate how much they receive as an individual. The less popular ones will of course get much less than the popular ones who are generally very wealthy indeed, certainly as much as a Premier League footballer. (further edit) It later occurred to me that a ringside seat in the shade for 95 euros is a very good deal. I am left wondering how you are able to buy the ringside seats in the shade because they are usually reserved for the season ticket holders and all the well connected people. Perhaps it is not a top flight matador. I paid over 100 euros for a seat right at the back in Seville a couple of springs ago, but that was for Jesulin de Ubrique. Richard Avery (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best tickets for boxing matches will often cost a lot more than 94 euros. For Ricky Hatton's bout at the MGM Grand in Vegas in May you can pay $10,000 or more for a front row seat. In football a higher viewpoint has its advantages if you want to see all the action, whereas in boxing being close to the fighters gives the best view; I bullfighting might be closer to boxing in this. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link suggests you are being offered expensive seats (or perhaps mediocre seats at tout prices) while the cheapest seats could be a low as 10 Euros. I have been to several sporting events around the world and have nearly always been told by my hotel concierge that tickets are nearly impossible to get, are very expensive, are sold out old months in advance; and yet for example I saw a Serie A game in Rome for just 14 Euros and this summer I went to an All-Ireland Semi Final in Dublin for 45 Euros. In both cases I just walked up to the ticket office at the stadium on the day. Astronaut (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 10 euros for a novillada which is a session of young bulls and unknown matadors. Like going to watch the Manchester United youth team. 86.4.182.202 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalks

I am somewhat confused about sidewalks ... maybe someone can clear this up for me? I thought that sidewalks "belong to" the city/town ... and not to the homeowner whose property the sidewalk surrounds. That is, the sidewalk legally is the town's property, and not the homeowner's property. Is that understanding correct? I also understand that, when it snows, it is the homeowner's responsibility to clear/shovel the sidewalk ... and not the town's responsibility. You always see homeowners shoveling their sidewalks ... you never see the town maintenance crews shoveling residents’ sidewalks. So, what’s the deal? Anyone know? Thanks. (This question refers to the United States.) (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The town of Hinesburg, Vermont clears many of the town's sidewalks. But you're right, it's not a common occurrence. Dismas|^(talk) 19:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for America, really, but this page does. It's all on there. In short, homeowners have 4 hours, or until the next morning to clear the snow. The authorities have a "reasonable time", which in legalese means "until the snow gets so bad hell freezes over". - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the requirement to clear snow from the city's sidewalk has been tested at appeals courts? If the city could require a property owner to remove snow from the city's sidewalk on property the homeowner does not own or pay taxes on, then why couldn't they require him to remove the snow from the street running by his house, or from the steps of city hall? Has anyone ever refused and taken it to the highest appeals level? On the other side of the argument, I know that in the early 19th century counties in the U.S. would require men who owned property to come on a specified day and maintain the county road near but not on their property. Their forced labor without compensation achieved a societal common good of having passable roads, and the alternative would have been to collect enough taxes to pay someone to do the same work. Similarly, a city can make property owners pay a special assessment to install sidewalks for the first time or to pave dirt or gravel alleys behind their property. This sidewalk cleaning requirement might be a vestige of the 19th century road work labor requirement. Edison (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that 4 hours rule enforced? Plenty of people routinely spend more than 4 hours away from their home (at work, for example), so there must be enormous numbers of times when people are unable to remove the snow within 4 hours. --Tango (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the requirement that abutting property owners clear the sidewalk is universal in the United States. I think that the requirement may not exist in some jurisdictions. My own city (Boston) has a requirement similar to New York's. It is not universally obeyed or well enforced. We have had at least three heavy snowfalls (>6 inches/15 cm) so far this winter, and several property owners in my neighborhood have yet to clear their sidewalk. Last year, the city issued tickets after one storm, which had the effect of increasing compliance, but the city has not issued tickets in my neighborhood yet this year, and compliance is dropping off. Marco polo (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The responsibility of clearing of sidewalks is generally left up to individual municipalities or even homeowners' associations in the U.S. If I recall correctly, my HOA covenant requires homeowners in my neighborhood to clear their own sidewalks. We are definately required to mow that little patch of grass between the sidewalk and the street. When I lived in a large city (Chicago), homeowners were required to clear any sidewalks that abbutted their property, and faced fines for not doing so. My landlord used to hire someone to do it. From a purely pragmatic standpoint of what is likely to be the most effective method of getting the sidewalk cleared, it makes sense to have the property owners do it; essentially you get a million shovels and snowblowers working for half an hour or so each to clear the entire city's sidewalks. With streets, city plows can effectively clear most of it, but with sidewalks, it gets done faster if you require everyone to pitch in. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask a mother with a baby carriage or stroller, an old person with a shopping cart, an injured person wearing a leg cast and requiring a cane or crutches, or someone wheelchair dependent, what they think of householders being required to clear the sidewalks abutting their property. In short, it doesn't happen, for the most part, or not in a sufficently timely fashion for the types of individuals mentioned to get to doctor's appointments, or to work or even to their own vehicle. And, if you want even more emotion, ask them about how cities pile up the snow at the curbs and around them at corners, to clear the roads for cars, leaving these pedestrians, and even many others with only small mobility issues, separated from bus stops and safe crossing zones and sometimes stranded on one side of a street for many blocks. You know about all those Snowbirds in Florida and Arizona in winter? They are the ones who are tired of being housebound for months at a time. Be nice to them. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most jurisdictions property owners are responsible for the maintainance of the unpaved right of way, i.e. the part not used for vehicular parking and movement and I suppose that is one reason property owners object to new sidewalks not only because it cuts back on their green space but requires then to remove snow from sidewalks in places where that happens. One reason why places like Florida are overpopulated. -- Taxa (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States many states require the owner of the abutting property to not only shovel snow but to repair any damaged sidewalk, or the local municipality may do the repairs and bill the owner of the abutting property. IANAL, but the way I understand it is that in most cases the homeowner actually owns the land all the way up to the road, but the government has right-of-way rights for a certain distance from the edge of the road. Thus, sidewalks would fall within the right-of-way but also be physically on the homeowner's property, making the homeowner liable for any injuries caused by a poorly-maintained sidewalk. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly and absolutely disagree with your assertion. My deed and the deeds of other property owners in my (U.S.) town show that the city owns the sidewalk and the parkway between the sidewalk and the street. Edison (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My deed shows I do not own the right-of-way but town government, in order to keep taxes low, requires that property owners maintain all parts of the abutting right-of-way except for the street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxa (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the part of Toronto where I live, not only are the sidewalks city property, but so it the adjacent 10-12 feet of my lawn (as was called to my attention recently when they had occasion to excavate it without bothering to warn me first). But my wife and I are indeed responsible for clearing snow off the sidewalk. How can they do that? There are lots of things that governments require people to do for the common good, in one place or another. Jury service, army service, fixing hazardous conditions, posting house numbers, even voting in some countries. This is just one more.

In North York and some of the other municipalities amalgamated into Toronto in 1998, they took a different view and those cities did provice a sidewalk-plowing service funded from municipal taxes. After the amalgamation, the new city decided that this would be provided "where feasible", but in older neighborhoods like mine where the sidewalks are hemmed in by utility poles and retaining walls, they said it was not feasible. So while some parts of the city get their sidewalks plowed, we don't. It doesn't really bother me: we'd still have to clear the walk to our front door, as well as our driveway if we had a car.

One service they do provide is that if someone who should have cleared their sidewalk doesn't, and someone else complains, they'll clear it and charge the property owner. So that's a nicely arranged incentive to comply with the law. I've made complaints like that against businesses a few times. --Anonymous, 00:40 UTC, January 12, 2009.

In the UK I understand that it is the council's responsibiliy to clear the paths - not only that I have heard of stories (though not in the most reputable papers) of individuals who have cleared their path - done a bad job - and then someone has falled and hurt themselves, and that the home-owner was sued - whereas had they done nothing it would've been the council who'd get sued. In the building I work we have about a 2-foot area beyond the perimeter of the building that is the company's land, it makes up part of the standard path (sidewalk) and the only separation is that there are little circle metal 'discs' embedded into the path to signify the edge of the company's land. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in Williamsville, New York, near Buffalo, New York. Sidewalks were plowed by cute little sidewalk snow plow machines, by the government. Pfly (talk) 09:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalks are a county/municipal issue AFAIK. In many places the space of the sidewalk is claimed by the city/county under Eminent domain. If the council decides to invest in city/county snow removal services such things then get financed out of property taxes (or similar funds}. That means in the end the homeowners are paying for it. Some places have regulations that say the city/county will remove snow at the homeowners exp3ense if he/she fails to do so. (And such bills tend to be lots higher than what someone would have to pay if they arranged it themselves.) Mostly it's an insurance issue. If someone slips on the sidewalk in front of your house and gets hurt they will sue the city. That will in turn go after the homeowner. Worst case you could lose your home. Given that, most people prefer to pay someone to shovel their snow if they can't do it themselves. These facts do contribute to the unenthusiastic response councils face when they suggest putting in new sidewalks. --76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, here in the UK the property boundary, and therefore the homeowners responsibility, usually stops before the pavement (sidewalk). Clearing snow from the pavement and the road is the responsibility of the local authority, though the pavement receives much lower priority than the roads. Of course homeowners often clear their bit of the pavement, but only because it is the right thing to do rather then the threat of some legal action. Of course, in southern England snow fall is so rare that failing to clear the pavement is rarely a problem. Astronaut (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the input ... this was very helpful ... much appreciated! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

map of dog related incidents

Where would be a good place to post an email address where info pertinent to an incident involving a dog attack, bite, etc. for the purpose of adding it to a Google Earth KML file so that bike riders and pedestrians can be alerted before taking their child or pet for a walk, run or jog? -- Taxa (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an idea for some kind of Google Maps mashup. Astronaut (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]