Rights over Air Space

agreed Buster, but a visually "green" field would allow us the choice of avoiding these areas regardless of what they are "scanning". Potentially good for more than just flight I would think

There are a WOLE BUNCH of dimensions to this. I think, if I am seeing enough of them, Bel’s proposal is an effort to overcome the negative effects that would come from giving the landowner complete control from ground to space.

First, I don’t feel the landowner should have control into space. I would like to see more control to a higher altitude than we currently have, but no control past that point. And, I would like to be able to fly – unaided OR emplaned – above that altitude. That way, if I want to go from hub to country, I can go straight line, without smacking my face into a new high-rise that didn’t rez fast enough. I don’t mind ascending from the hub to 300 meters, if I can get guaranteed clear airspace at that height. And I’m sure the aircraft aficionados would love that too.

Why do we want to restrict so much airspace? Well, I can only assume that it’s for privacy sake. For instance, I’m sure the floating love box set would like to restrict air traffic – planes and drones. While I empathize, I can’t get up enough sympathy to advocate this as a justification for major changes. On one hand, if someone sees something naughty going on at 500 meters, they should probably just go on about their business. On the other hand, if SL is a mandatory sexual release for you, you should probably see someone about this - in RL.

That’s probably not the major privacy concern that’s driving this discussion, though. It all about those flitting drones and spybots, isn’t it? Well, this is a sticky one. From my perspective, this has more to do with trying to suppress a particular unpleasant – but apparently legal - practice by making a general prohibition against the resources and allowances that made the practice possible. (Sorta like trying to control poverty by creating vagrancy laws.)

I believe this is the wrong direction to go. If the problem is that we don’t want people sending out probes to tell them when we release land, or who is visiting, or how many scripts we’re running, etc, then we need to have that activity put in the Community Standards as prohibited. I’m not sure that’s possible, but it seems more likely than convincing LL that there’s a big enough need for individual total control over air space that they need to deal with the results of such a sweeping change.

It seems like we are trying to get the Lindens to acknowledge a need that doesn’t exist in order to get the Lindens to make large-scale changes to meet a need that already exists but the Lindens won’t acknowledge. Or something like that.

All that being said, if we did manage to get this change in landowner control of space, then there are a few more things to consider. I would love to have a free corridor from ground to space for cars, bikes, hoverboards, planes and spaceships. Unfortunately, I suspect the only way for these corridors to be universally useful would be for them to follow efficient patterns – or at least consistent patterns – and for them to be in all sims. For all of this to take place, we’ll certainly have to deal with the concept of eminent domain to a degree we never have before. In the past, the Lindens might hold out a sim, or a chunk of a sim for a build, or a river, or just ‘cause they like the way the hill looks. But, they’ve never come along and said “Nice build! Oh, uh…you’ll have to move.” There’s certainly no reason that they can’t do that, but we should expect a small amount of unpleasantness from those who are directly impacted. We should also expect a fairly significant influx of money into the economy from the many “market value” compensations that would necessarily take place.

I can actually see the establishment of clear corridors as having a large positive impact on airplanes and other vehicles. Perhaps even mass transit. I could see myself hopping on the bullet train in Ahern and shooting clear across the world in a couple minutes. I would still – even under this model – find some limit to an owner’s airspace (perhaps above 500 meters?) so that some free aircraft flight can take place. Of course, this would mean scanners and satellites at that altitude as well – unless they were prohibited specifically. And that would make all the other changes relatively unnecessary, right?

Here’s what *I* would like to see.

I’d like for landowners to have TOTAL control over the air space they do have. And by “total” I do NOT mean the right to automate the killing of unknown passers-by. Bouncing or blocking entry is one thing. Deadfall traps are quite another. I wouldn’t even mind a final solution of using a script to kill an invader, but it should give warning first, or require an operator to be present on the scene.

I’d love to see avatars able to fly at a higher altitude unassisted. This should be above the limit for total landowner control – a limit which should also be raised a bit. This way, I always know that I can get some clear space at a specific altitude – whether I fly unassisted or in an aircraft. If someone needs to build that high, they should be required to display fast-loading warning textures or lights, or – perhaps – be prohibited from building at that height. Perhaps this would be a good region for banning all objects not in the company of an avatar?

I’d like to see a petition created that would ask the Lindens to add “surreptitious or clandestine scanning” to the list of prohibited activities in the Community Standards. If this petition were worded tightly and specifically, I would expect it to succeed, and for the Lindens to accept it as the will of the majority. If it applies only to surreptitious or clandestine scanning, it would not have any impact on legitimate uses of satellites or scanners for public projects that are announced, debated and accepted by residents.

Finally, I’d like to see some of the infrastructure Bel is talking about come into being. I could see a great benefit in a few Linden-sponsored cross-country scenic trains, or straight multi-sim highways, or regional airports, or national parks. We have MANY citizens who would be excellent choices for contractors for government projects like these. Can you imagine a long relaxing train trip on a train with large open windows and ample seating for you and your friends – or you and your Beloved? Starting in Ahern and moving gracefully down the Central Corridor to Points East? A station in Freelon for transfer to the Boardman Line and All Points North?

If done wisely, I think the Lindens could find us a right-of-way for such a system. Or, perhaps, we could build an “elevated”? Even one elevated 300-500 meters in the air, with a lease fee paid to those lucky enough to host an elevated train or highway overhead.

I think there are a lot of possibilities once we separate those possibilities from the issue of unwelcome surveillance. I say we should ask the King to speak out AGAINST private spying, and FOR a publicly transparent approval process for beneficial satellite research. And we should propose and discuss some large scale public transportation and social works that He can help us fund and create.

I mean, the new Welcome Center is grand, but we can certainly dream bigger than that!

This is very frustrating. I dont mind if you bash my idea, but right now you're bashing some other idea and pinning my name on it.

Imagine the way it is now PLUS transit corrdors.

Flights, vehicles, people, nano-bots, AI-enabled creatures and the pollen from any pollen-creating flowers created in SL, can go where they want to. Just like they can now. IN ADDITION TO ( as in adding to a situation, not taking away ) there would be new spaces added which would be guaranteed paths.

So, I'm flying in my plane, soaring over houses...whee...Oops, obstacle ahead, I avoid it..back to flying..fun fun fun

Oh, wait, i dont wanna bother avoiding obstacles, I'll follow the road ...easy sailing...whee!

This is ADDING to the ability for flyers to fly, plus giving cars a chance to partake in the fun

Agreed it would. I hadn't discussed the practicalities of implementation, but I think the most practical roll out, is to implement the system going forward and leave existing sims as-is.

The question then is, would people buy into sims that had land pre-designated for roads and other public uses? Would people value land in which they had control of the airspace?

I hope you don't see me as bashing your ideas, Bel. I intended to support them.

In fact, since I posted, I just got an idea as to HOW we can gain corridors WITHOUT eminent domain!

All the Lindens need to do is insert new servers between some strips of current servers and dedicate these new servers (They don't have to be full sized sims - perhaps one sim long by an acre or so wide?) to transportation and infrastructure. They could also contain compatible park systems and public spaces.

These strips of new public land/transportation corridors could run horizontally and vertically in a grid between sims and be maybe 5 or 6 sims apart. And, since the servers would not actually have to follow the rules of regular sim servers, they would not have to allow as many resources for general consumption. Therefore, they could be optimized for travel and public use in particular. Who knows? Maybe we could get them optimized to pass hoverboards across the borders more effectively, too!

What do you think of inserting a lattice of these kinds of sims?



PS: Now that I think of it some more, I think these interstitial public sims would be a lot like the old racing sims we have down south – only skinny and long

Its an interisting idea...

Right now in SL you don't actualy have much "air traffic", rarely do I fly and see someone else flying, or even fly near anyone else. I imagine with air spaces being outlined more common flight paths and air traffic would happen. This could be a bad thing when you have someone who doesn't know anything about flying sailing straight at you.

Instead of being dumped from an air space I imagine a good way would be that after a certain amount of time of being in that air space (say 5 seconds), you start to gradualy and slightly get "pushed" to the nearest open boundry line so that you are out of the airspace. Planes guarding protected airspace don't just shoot you down, they guide you away first unless you don't comply. However I imagine this could result in some issues where SL buggily pushes you into a boundry on a sim edge where you get stuck in a corner.

Seeing working airports would be neat. Cubey is already taking advtanage of such things in an awsome way. I could see a potential issue though if airports became overly popular, i.e. the same issue that presents itself in Real Life many a times, the "I don't want plans and crap flying over my house" issue, while having less of a noise or air polution problem in SL, people do like to complain.

I do think its an interisting idea, and some things would be fun to see out of it, but I see alot of issues that could come, and do come up with it as well.

You can't fly in real life either If you could strap on a jet pack and fly up to cruising altitude, tap on the window, and tell the pilot "hey buddy, I'm sleeping here..keep it down!", you would think of that airspace differently.

The difference bettern airspace in SL and airspace in RL is we can use the airspace in SL quite easily. If I could build a house above the clouds in rl, I'd do it in a heartbeat. And if we all had the ability to build cloud houses, there would be friction between the people suburbanizing the skies and the people wanting to fly the skies.

Very cool idea, Kathy! I like it

I just feel like adding spaces specifically intended to accomodate vehicles (without taking away their ability to navigate between whatever, controls, scripts or builds residents choose to put on their land - just like now) would 1) increase the usage of vehicles 2) give SL visual continuity 3) create "flow" (feels like SL is kinda patchworky...while people have done walking tours, that type of experience is not really typical....transit spaces can create continuous ground travel spaces..encourage people to tour SL from a walking perspective too)

Anyway, thanks for working with the idea a little

I just have to say, the more I think about this, the more I like it. Special space just for public travel and parks. Finally, you could always count on at least one path being clear for flying, riding, driving, or even hiking. Plenty of room for picnics, and great space for public buildings and future infrastructure. If they were about 1 or two acres wide, there’s be plenty of room for a highway and rail AND parks or woodlands or wetlands. And no one to complain about low flying space ships. So many people so close to parks. <sigh> And, if someone has an idea for a special park, or monument, or public facility, they can propose it to the Lindens and see if they want to make it or contract some one to make it.

Plus these interstitial sims would increase the property values of the properties that border them. It would add gradations of value that aren’t there now. It will matter how close or far land is from roads, parks and rails.

And, as a little bonus, it would further section off the country into large regions that could develop their own identities as units larger than a sim and smaller than the world Perhaps some will form huge themed areas, or refuges, or forests, or states

But, most of all, they would create relatively cheap, shared space - most of it unallocated to specific uses that exclude free public access. It may cost LL some dosh to put in a few rows and columns of new servers, but I think the future will require this extra room, and it’s a worthwhile investment now, while the world is young – and relatively small.

Does anyone else see the extreme value in having these under-utilized strips of land evenly distributed throughout the country?

I certainly was not bashing your idea either Bel, but I thought I had some flaw in the plan. However as the thread continues I think I merely misunderstood =D I love Kathy's idea, in particular the parts about open public spaces or Rest Areas if you will =) I too rarely see others flying around, but I often associate this uneven height of travel more than anything. Being able to regulate how high is an excellent idea too, but just so I understand clearly:

In some sims, you could have this restricted airspace (or even dedicated sims if Kathy's idea were to go through) where buildings could only go so high, and there are preffered thoroughfares for air and ground traffic.

While in the other sims, airspace would be unrestricted and people could build to whatever heights they want, protect those places, and traffic would not be discouraged, just as difficult as it is now because you always run into something that hadn't rezzed.

Is this what you mean Bel? If so, then I really like the idea. Quite intriguing to be certain =D Certainly would give the world more continuity and ease of mass transit.

As far as Kathy's ideas, my main concern would be that it would take a large Linden effort. They have been doing a lot for the world lately, but continue to profess that they eventually want to have no control. Perhaps they would get it started until they could relinquish it?

Just some more thoughts =D

Higbee,

Yes, it would require a Linden effort. They would have to create the interstitial sims. Past that, they would have to approve the ideas and contractors for the roads and other infrastructure - or for parks and projects. I suppose they could pass the administration of the Parks and Transportation Committee on to citizens, but I’m not sure there’s all that much administrative work to do.

I would expect citizens to do most of the real work and maintenance. I would expect the Lindens to pay for them to do it.

So, the Lindens would have to spend some serious money on this network, true, but they'd have to invest very little time and effort really. And I think that the costs will be mostly bunched up at the beginning, and will level off as the roads and rails are completed, and it becomes maintenance and the little bit of building and forestation on new interstitials as the continent expands.

In fact, I wonder if this could develop into a work program to replace most of the welfare money we get. It would at least help develop several complex and widely beneficial markets.

I think that if Linden Lab thinks about this for a few days, they will realize that the money they spend upfront on this will be more than worthwhile.

The irony?

Several people in this thread are members of the 'Second Life is just like the real thing' group - well they WERE - until someone suggested they might have to walk/drive everywhere.

Higbee, thanks for taking time to revisit this thread Thanks to everyone who took the time to post their opinions - for or against. It's appreciated!

And yes, the idea here is to explore adding vehicle friendly space without taking away the present day options.

Think of it this way, when the vehicle sims were added to the grid, no one saw it as a way of nerfing cars because they would be restricted to the vehicle sims. The dedicated space was understood as an addition to the existing space.

Now imagine that instead of the vehicle sims grouped together in one spot, they were stretched out and formed a contiguous path through the entire mainland. The existence of that path does not prevent anyone from flying wherever it is currently possible. Obviously landowners will continue to build skyboxes, space stations, and castles in the skys - so with the knowlege that obstacles are possible, flight vehicles are welcome to leave the path and take their chances.

After reading a post by Andrew Linden, I became aware that LL formally considers space above a certain height as the "commons". Ok. I can see the necessity for public use land. But it made me think. What if that common land was also accessible at ground level. What if that common area could support social space as well?

Instead of a space dedicated solely to the free transit of flying objects, what about a space that can include the free transit of ground vehicles and pedestrians too?

According to Andrew, the way to create public space is to designate a layer above the land as public. I'm just suggesting we look at creating public space at ground level too.

Adding sims inbetween sims could split up cross-sim builds (few, but they exist), and mess up pathfinder scripts. :\

That's very true. But I think the benefit of having significant under-utilized public space would out-weigh the costs of compensating the few citizens who have builds across borders. Besides, I'm suggesting only two rows of interstitial strip going east-west, and two going north-south. At the current size of the word, that should give us plenty of public space and transportation infrastructure.

(Actually, I just realized that each interstitial server could be stretched so that it supports a strip 2 acres by 4 to 8 sims in length without putting it under too much more stress that normal. This might make it more financially palpable to the Lindens. Fewer machines, ya know.)

As for pathfinder scripts, I am fairly sure that these off-shape sims could easily be exceptioned into a script.

Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.