In Walker v. City of Scottsdale, 163 Ariz. 206, 208-09, 786 P.2d 1057, 1059-60 (App. 1989) the Court held that a previous version of the statute did not provide recreational immunity against liability for injuries suffered by a bicyclist during a fall on a bicycle path in an urban greenbelt. 163 Ariz. 206, 786 P.2d 1057. The Court concluded that the path was not a "premises" under the recreational immunity statute as originally enacted because it was not included in the four types of premises then enumerated in the statute: agricultural, range, mining, or forest lands. Id. at 209, 786 P.2d at 1060. The Court also determined that it was not within the scope of "other similar lands" because, whereas the lands enumerated in the statute all are "relatively large areas of land," "are located outside urban areas in thinly populated rural or semi-rural locales," and are "often in a natural, undeveloped state," a maintained bike path in an urban, residential area, by contrast, does not exhibit any of these characteristics and therefore could not be considered similar under the statute. Id. at 210-11, 786 P.2d at 1061-62.