Particularly often, the concept of "endangerment of the public" is used as reason for preventive custody for sexual offenders, especially if the contraveners show no remorse and reject therapies.
Common to all utilisations of the term "endangerment of the (general) public" in legal practice is, that it describes a serious, latent danger to the life or physical condition of one or more people – but simple nudity, as it takes place in a nude hike or an athletic activity in the nude, does not cause any (serious) danger at all. Therefore, simple nudity does not fulfil the fact of "endangerment of the (general) public"
In the judgment “Beschluss vom 30.10.2014 - BVerwG 2 B 109.13” (bverwg.de) of the Federal Administrative Court concerning a former police officer convicted of violent offences, the reasons given for the judgment state:
“[…] The further activity of the plaintiff as a police officer leads to a considerable endangerment of the general public, because it damages the reputation of the police. […]”
The Bundesgerichtshof [en: Federal Court of Justice] speaks in the judgment “Bundesgerichtshof Urt. v. 25.02.1954, Az.: 1 StR 633/53” (wolterskluwer-online.de) of:
“[…] Realisation of the danger to the general public in case of driving disqualification […]”.
– These judgments are citates of “Why nude hiking does not endanger the public”