Various legal systems have varying definitions of what is and is not a legal infringement on property rights.

For instance, in (some parts of?) the UK there's the Right to Roam, I believe, which grants the public limited rights to pass through certain private property (such as an open field). Obviously this doesn't extend to harming anything. The point is, passing through someone's private property without causing any damage or inconveniencing them is not automatically considered unethical.

For the record, freedom to roam in England and Wales is rather limited in scope; the quintessential right-to-roam countries are the Nordics (and to an extent Scotland, but it’s an honorary Nordic country anyway). For example, in Finland the customary rights extend beyond just hiking to activities like gathering wild berries and mushrooms.

Do you hate Hawaii’s protection of beach access even if it requires passage through private property? Legalized disrespect?

I couldn't find anything to support the idea that Hawaii’s protection of beach access allows anyone to traverse private property except where a specific rights-of-way easement exists on that property. I don't think the gp would consider use of land via an easement to be disrespectful as the easement holder has rights to the land that must be respected as well.

The courtyards of apartment complexes/condos are usually considered either semi-public or semi-private spaces, and their status with regard to passing through is not clear-cut either legally or morally.