> Not a lawyer, but it would seem that your statement is true. I have always been taught that permission kills adverse possession (it isn't adverse anymore).
>
> I doubt that permission would kill all color of title issues, and some prescriptive rights might exist?
In 1989 the Oregon legislature added the requirement that one enter into possession with the "honest belief" that the land was his. This sign would certainly put that in question.
Adverse Possession in OR
> In 1989 the Oregon legislature added the requirement that one enter into possession with the "honest belief" that the land was his.
So you can no longer adversely possess land that you know is not yours in OR?
Adverse Possession in OR
> So you can no longer adversely possess land that you know is not yours in OR?
True, unless you can prove that your adverse title vested before 1989. But more than that, if your adverse title claim vests after 1989 the burden of proof is on the adverse claimant to prove honest belief with an objective basis and not just just an absence of knowledge. There have been very few successful adverse possession cases reaching state court level in Oregon wherein title vested after 1989.