Lockwood, Inc., 250 Ga. 799, 301 S.E.2d 265 (1983). A park created to celebrate the spirit of an historic athletic and cultural event and to provide a gathering place for visitors to relax and enjoy themselves constitutes property available to the public for recreational purposes so as to come within the immunity provisions of the Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq. Anderson v. Atlanta Comm. for the Olympic Games, Inc., 273 Ga. 113, 537 S.E.2d 345 (2000). Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., applies to spectators at athletic events when no admission charge is imposed. Spivey v. City of Baxley, 210 Ga. App. 772, 437 S.E.2d 623 (1993). 51-3-21 Summary judgment was inappropriate when a fact issue remained as to whether a lot owner’s clearing of property subject to an easement interfered with the easement holders’ rights to use the land for recreational purposes, such as enjoying the land in its natural uncut state. E. Beach Props. v. Taylor, 250 Ga. App. 798, 552 S.E.2d 103 (2001). Summary judgment was improperly entered in favor of an Olympic Committee since a genuine issue of material fact existed about whether the operation of the Olympic Park was a commercial or a recreational venture; on remand, the jury was ordered to resolve the question of whether the nature of the Park at the time of the underlying explosion which caused the death or injury of those involved in the litigation was commercial or recreational, and the court was to decide whether the Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., applied to the Park and insulated the Committee from liability. Anderson v. Atlanta Comm. for the Olympic Games, Inc., 261 Ga. App. 895, 584 S.E.2d 16 (2003), aff ’d, sub nom. Atlanta Comm. for the Olympic Games, Inc. v. Hawthorne, 278 Ga. 116, 598 S.E.2d 471 (2004). Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to a city on allegations of negligence asserted against by an injured motorcycle driver as the Recreational Property Act (Act), O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., prevented the driver from recovering from the city based on allegations of simple negligence; moreover, the Act clearly applied because it was undisputed that the injuries occurred when the driver collided with the cable fence on the city’s recreational property, and the city permitted the general public to use the park and open field where the accident occurred for recreational purposes without charge. Carroll v. City of Carrollton, 280 Ga. App. 172, 633 S.E.2d 591 (2006). Hunting is among the many recreational purposes recognized by the Georgia Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq. Lee v. Dep’t of Natural Res. of Ga., 263 Ga. App. 491, 588 S.E.2d 260 (2003). Park in which substantial profit made. — Stone Mountain Park premises 458 51-3-21 LIABILITY OF OWNERS/OCCUPIERS OF LAND are a public recreation area, notwithstanding the fact that substantial revenues may be derived from the sale of special permits, concessions, and tickets to rides and other attractions located on the premises. Hogue v. Stone Mt. Mem. Ass’n, 183 Ga. App. 378, 358 S.E.2d 852, cert. denied, 183 Ga. App. 906, 358 S.E.2d 852 (1987). Cemetery maintenance company. — Whether the Recreational Property Act, O.C.G.A. § 51-3-20 et seq., applied to a cemetery maintenance company was a question for the jury; liability could be 51-3-22 imposed based upon theories that the maintenance company acted as the cemetery owner’s agent. Martin v. Dempsey Funeral Servs. of Ga., Inc., 319 Ga. App. 343, 735 S.E.2d 59 (2012). Cited in Georgia Power Co. v. McGruder, 229 Ga. 811, 194 S.E.2d 440 (1972); Erickson v. Century Mgt. Co., 154 Ga. App. 508, 268 S.E.2d 779 (1980); Georgia Marble Co. v. Warren, 183 Ga. App. 866, 360 S.E.2d 286 (1987); Cooley v. City of Carrollton, 249 Ga. App. 387, 547 S.E.2d 689 (2001). 51-3-22. Duty of owner of land to those using same for recreation generally.