the exception arose “because it was the custom of neighbors to travel over such land for pleasure or convenience and the owners usually made no objection to their doing so.... ”); Forrester, 98 Md.App. at 485, 633 A.2d at 915 (“[A] landowner who quietly acquiesces in the use of a path, or road, across his uncultivated land, resulting in no injury to him, but in great convenience to his neighbor, ought not to have thereby lost his rights.” (quotation omitted)); Town of Manchester v. Augusta Country Club, 477 A.2d 1124, 1130 (Me.1984) (“[The exception] is predicated on the notion that [recreational] use by the general public is consistent with, and in no way diminishes, the rights of the owner in his land”); Spiegle v. Beach Haven, 116 N.J.Super. 148, 281 A.2d 377, 382 (App.Div.1971) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Shorett v. Blue Ridge Club, 22
holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse holding that the owner of the land could not bring a 93a action against a prior owner of the land who was not the seller because there was no business connection between the two parties holding that use of unimproved land in a general state of nature is presumably permissive if there has been no actual deprivation of any beneficial use to the owner holding land for speculation is a legitimate commercial use grazing on land so classified subject to a special use permit holding that enhanced standard of proofs for use variances does not apply where use is inherently beneficial