Many purists who shoot landscape images believe that genuine landscape photography is not to include any man-made elements. I was taught this way, but I no longer subscribe to that view. Human impact is part of the landscape. There are fences and roads and all sorts of things. Should we not shoot what we see as long as the human element aids the composition of the image? Let's go one step further, why not use a human element as the major compositional element? Let's look at the image below as an example:

The road plays the major role in making this image what it is. It leads the viewer into the image. It takes you to where the color is. Perhaps some will argue that this is not a landscape image; I may not care how other classify it - I just like the image.

          Over the years I have learned not to listen to "rules" that are presented as absolute. I think beginners need rules to help guide them and to improve their photography. However, as you advance feel free to break the rules as long as it works. Include human elements into your landscape work if they increase the effectiveness of your photographs.

          The human element may actually add interest. It may help to tell a story. If that disqualifies an image from being a landscape image, so be it. Call it whatever you want but I make art, how about you?