Bridge Over 'Linden' Waters

I'm thinking of buying some mainland land, a little pricey but in a nice area and with low(ish) lag. The land comprises two plots separated by a channel of Linden Protected waters. I thought it would be nice to build a bridge between the two plots. The bridge of course would be high enough to allow sailing boats to pass beneath. I'm a big sailing fan and would never obstruct the free passage of craft along the channel.

Then I wondered whether the sections of the bridge crossing the Linden Protected Land (or water in this case) might keep vanishing - accompanied by a message 'your object has been returned to inventory' (after all it/they are technically not on my land).

I'm guessing it's not a problem too many people have been faced with, but maybe someone's got some advice before I buy. I probably wont buy unless I can build the bridge (hence the query).

Thanks....Perre..

Hi Perre,

I know someone who's done this in SL... or they say they have..

I'll ask them to IM you if that's ok.

That would be just fine Stephen - Thanks

Perre..

I've seen a build that did this. No one seemed to really object as it was not in the way and added to the environment.

Likely hit or miss depending on what Linden you speak with and when.

Perre ... the bridge (and its entire prim count) will reside on whatever land you put the root prim. SL has no detection code for prims that overhang other parcels at present, so the Lindens will not be returning parts of your bridge, unless one actually sees it and hates it, lol!

That said, many people keep bridges out of the way by making them on-touch drawbridges (i.e. big doors lying sideways) that are usually in the up position (I've experimented with making them shorter when "up", and that looks fine too).

They are fun anyway
.

If the center of the base prim of the linked set is on your land, you can extend the set as far as you like. Maybe you could make 2 sides to the bridge, and put each end on your land?

What Oryx said.

You will have to build the bridge in a way where the root prim is on your land. It will, therefore, take up your prim count. Also, linked prims can only be so far apart. I believe it's about 30m. If the channel's wide enough, you may need to build it in two pieces.

--Hugsy

Thanks for the advice folks, sounds to me the project's a 'go', now where's that Amex card.

Perre..

Just in case you may think about the fact if its not your land and you know it without the Lindens approval you, regardless if its the nicest bridge in sl, have no right to build on anything not yours, unless its in a sandbox.

I'd really ask before doing so.

don`t bother, you`ll have more luck winning the lottery then a reply

make the bridge out of 2 sections with the root of each on your plot
incase you need more length, try using the 20x20x0.5 mega prim at the fartest point possible in the link on your land and when it firts, make it alpha, good way to squeeze an extra couple of meters overhang

There is a lifting bridge over the Linden channel that runs diagonally through the Lamella sim in southern Corsica.
It's not a pretty build - just a cut hollow cube with a stone texture - but it works.
It's a single long span, so it's a tad remarkable when it's in the raised position.

A pair of spans would be nicer - or as mentioned above it could be made shorter as it rises.
A pair if spans would also allow the default state to be raised, which should eliminate the possibility of anyone ARing it.

They have a 'Click to raise bridge' notice in English and German on the side of it. This adds to the 'cheap and cheerful' air of the thing.
A more sophisticated approach might be to use a graphic to indicate to lifting nature of the bridge. That would cover the language issue.


There used to be a fixed bridge in that position, but only small non-masted boats could pass under it.
I know that a number of people ARed that one, myself included. I had talked with the owner, but he wasn't of a mind to move it. Something must have changed his attitude
The lifting bridge isn't a problem. It's quite fun.


Most Linden channels are 16m wide - unless they are two parallel 16m wide channels, each on the edge of a sim. Linked prims with the root prim off the Linden land should be able to cover any channel.

I would avoid the use of megaprims. A lifting bridge should be safe from ARing except by fundamentalists. I kinda doubt the LL would remove one. However I do believe that they have an inclination to zap megaprims that get ARed.

I used to be a guest on a parcel that has several Linden streams running through it. The land owner had built a number of nice bridges crossing it.

As others stated, the root prim has to be on your land. The bridge can easily use multiple parts, allowing for a longer span than a single linkset will allow.

Making it a drawbridge of some sort is the best solution to the issue of keeping the waterway accessible for boat traffic. And they can be fun to build, too! For a lift gate that hinges on one end, use a door script. For one that raises straight up and down, use a sliding door script.

If you want to see a really large bridge, go to the Sunrise Hopes sim. I built one there that is 250 Meters long, and spans the gap between that sim and the one to the North of it! It has a drawbridge span in Sunrise Hopes that is touch-activated, for sailboat traffic.

i've seen both roads and bridges crossing LL waterways. i didn't know they were draw bridges. that's really cool.

Perhaps it's just an English-is-not-first-language thing, but you seem a little more upset about this than necessary. In order to do this, the OP will have to use his own prims and the OP did state that the pathway will remain open so I'm not sure what the big deal is.

Anyway, here's the Protected Land FAQ:



While it seems strongly worded against building on Linden land, the reality of enforcement seems to be that nobody minds as long as you're not blocking the passageway which is the OP's stated intention.

--Hugsy

Oh the sharks are out. Obviously from the personal attack (english as a second language)the upset seems to emanate from you. The Op is considering purchasing land only if they can build the bridge as they stated so to alert them that it could be in vain is not upset. Of course the other posters who encourage without the assent of the Lindens know more so defer to that reasoning if you wish.

It has nothing to do with whose prims are used. Posting the intention to build knowing its not your right without asking permission can come back to bite one. If all or any decide to build across protected land whats the use of having it protected?

Your own post verifies that it shouldn't be done. That the possibility of it not lasting is real shouldn't be addressed, as it might offend those who wish to blur the lines of what are their rights.

Don't be concerned that your bad advice may cost someone even if enforcement is remote, it not your teir to pay.

Lets encourage all to build over protected lands and decide for themselves if its cool, don't stop there just build anywhere you feel like it, just because its not your property shouldn't make any difference.

Btw blame me for rudy's post as I was the one who posted accidentaly in her name.

You seem very exciteable.

It's natural to suspect that a stilted or badly written post is the product of someone writing in a secondary language, or relying partially on automated translation. I've had to call discussions here because what I was saying seemed to be running straight into a translator barrier.

The KB article is written to make it plain that Protected Land plots, despite usually being build-enabled and often not having a set return time, are not permanent housing. It's meant to conceptually separate them from sandboxes. Even if the land doesn't have a return or a scheduled sweep, things are cleaned up every now and then, and the "home" you built for a week might be gone tomorrow.

An attractive bridge spanning a Linden waterway between a resident's two plots, as long as it allows for right of way, realistically isn't going to gather any complaints.

I can see that certain people might now try to chase it down to prove their point, despite ruining an attractive curio of the mainland. Please don't. Attractive and creative builds such as the one proposed in this thread don't break any rules and make our shared world better, not worse. As a fellow resident, shouldn't you try to do the same?

Relax. The English-is-not-your-first-language bit was not a personal attack but rather a simple acknowledgement that I may be reading a tone in the post that wasn't intended (i.e, the misunderstanding of your post could be my fault). This is something that can happen when someone writes in a language that isn't their first language.

Notice the FAQ I posted has this bit: "in order to hold pathways, canals, or flight paths open". While the OP intends to hang prims over the Linden land, it was stated that free travel won't be restricted. As a result, it's unreasonable to expect LL will care regardless of how strong the FAQ is written.

It's a giant leap to go from building a bridge over Linden land to "just build anywhere you feel like it" but if you want to get all pissed off about it and have fit then don't let me stop you.

--Hugsy

"Relax. The English-is-not-your-first-language bit was not a personal attack but rather a simple acknowledgement that I may be reading a tone in the post that wasn't intended (i.e, the misunderstanding of your post could be my fault). This is something that can happen when someone writes in a language that isn't their first language.

Notice the FAQ I posted has this bit: "in order to hold pathways, canals, or flight paths open". While the OP intends to hang prims over the Linden land, it was stated that free travel won't be restricted. As a result, it's unreasonable to expect LL will care regardless of how strong the FAQ is written.

It's a giant leap to go from building a bridge over Linden land to "just build anywhere you feel like it" but if you want to get all pissed off about it and have fit then don't let me stop you."


you seemed to want to start an argument rather than disscuss the veracity of the situation.
Ditto on the relax. The Op comes into a public forum and announces his intention to skirt the issue that it is not in fact his land. I give advice to check with the owners who may in fact say good idea.

Remoteness not quite so remote now. Possibility exist that his investment could be wasted as was his concern.

"The best advice we can give: Find somewhere else to build". straight from your post. Its a slippery slope at best to suggest one skirt the issue and might have been better if he just went and did it rather than to announce his intention in a public forum.

You keep trying to insist someone is "pissed" and I suggest this is a way to re-direct away from the issue at hand. I also noticed you did not address the fact if one can build over protected land then all can and may indeed be a cause for the Lindens to enforce their position.

You start by saying "relax" and end by saying if I want to be pissed go ahead, lol. I am direct and will admit that some may find that style aggressive but for you to assume to know what my feelings are .

KK, we are from California (I originally from Ohio), and I may occaisionally be sloppy with my wording and spelling (been known as the King of Typease) . I have been corrected before for walls of text and since have tried to chunk it down so constructive criticism I have no problem with.
"You seem very exciteable.

" I've had to call discussions here because what I was saying seemed to be running straight into a translator barrier."

This statement may be an example of translation probs (problems ) since I'm having a hard time discerning what you mean by "calling a discussion." Do you mean to stop your input?

The KB article is written to make it plain that Protected Land plots, despite usually being build-enabled and often not having a set return time, are not permanent housing. It's meant to conceptually separate them from sandboxes. Even if the land doesn't have a return or a scheduled sweep, things are cleaned up every now and then, and the "home" you built for a week might be gone tomorrow.

An attractive bridge spanning a Linden waterway between a resident's two plots, as long as it allows for right of way, realistically isn't going to gather any complaints.

I can see that certain people might now try to chase it down to prove their point, despite ruining an attractive curio of the mainland. Please don't. Attractive and creative builds such as the one proposed in this thread don't break any rules and make our shared world better, not worse. As a fellow resident, shouldn't you try to do the same? "

Protecting someone by suggesting one doesn't build on land he doesn't own when it was his main concern doesn't imply I would do anything to prevent it. The implication that shouldn't I do the same to make our shared world better is that I don't and has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP original concern hense the "sharks" and or personal attacks.

Attractive and or creative builds are in the eye of the beholder so if it was a sloppy build or unattractive in your eyes you would nix the idea? That seems a bit sloppy.

Oops griefer on property got to go before I do I am not pissed or upset and will try to buff the edges off my sharpness .

If your whole point was simply that since he's going to be building over Linden land then there's a possibility that the Lindens will return it, then ok, point taken.

However, there seems to be more to it than that. It obviously upsets you or else you wouldn't have used the phrase "have no right to build on anything not yours", an emotionally charged phrased referring to an innocuous bridge over Linden land. Other, similar-style comments can be pointed out, but I don't want to get any more nitpicky.

If that's just you being direct and me perceiving it as aggressive, then fine, whatever.

--Hugsy

quite simply it is a violation of the community standards as stated. and as for being in the way, it may be a beautiful bridge, it may still block the view or the flyway, as a rule if i find them near my land i send a im asking that they be remove3d , then i ar them until the lindens remove them. maybe you think i am being bitchy but when you have flown into someones build over linden waterways due to slow rezzing as often as i have, you can get crabby about it.

Which community standard? Is it #6 Distrubing the Peace? The bit about "objects that ... inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life"? That's quite a bit of stretch there.

I like to fly too and the big problems are sim border crossings, ban lines you can't see, and security orbs you can't see. These things can severely foul up the operation of the aircraft. On the other hand, I don't recall ever seeing a thread where somebody got mad about flying into a bridge (and we're talking about a bridge that easily allows passage over and under, not one that's completely blocking the passageway). So, I really don't know what gets you so upset about this.

--Hugsy

it is protected land for a reason, i have had land in the same sim for almost 3 years , one reason is the view, and someone building over the river can obstruct that view and people who build somplace they do not own bothers me. I'm not talking about flying in a plane etc i'm talking about zooming along the river, and yes i often fly faster than things rezz and it has caused me issues
lets transfer this to RL you saying it is ok to just build something on gov't land because you can anchor it to your land on either side of it?

how is it a stretch that someone building over protected land is something that can inhibit others enjoyment? just out of curiosity, how is it emotional to say that a person does not have the right to build on land that is not your own? you seem rather emotional in your defense of being able to just build where ever you want, does that mean you can put something on my land if you want? i'm curious where you draw the line as to where a persons rights to build off their own land ends?

How it affects the view is a gray area. On the one hand it could be a big ol' nasty structure that totally destroys what was once a nice view. I can certainly understand getting pissed at that. On the other hand, it could be a small little foot-bridge that fits nicely into the general theme of everyone else's build. Then there's the in-betweens and it's all rather subjective.



Ah, you're talking about flying your avatar? Going back to the bridge we're talking about (one that allows passage over and under, not one that's completely blocking the passageway), then I suggest that you a) go around it, and b) if it's a path you frequently travel then remember it's there so you don't bump into the next time.

I'm curious. What issues does bumping into things cause you?



Let's say there's a little stream that's protected by the government because they don't want you to block/dam it or otherwise interfere with the flow of the water. In this case, if I own both sides and make a little foot-bridge that spans all of 10-15 feet, who gives a shit?

If you're talking about a larger river/valley and a bridge that accomodates vehicle travel then I assume there's probably a whole host of issues that don't map to SL.



Remember, we're talking about a bridge that allows passage over and under, not one that's completely blocking the passageway. Other than a possible view issue (addressed above), how is someone overhanging prims on Linden land inhibiting your enjoyment of SL?



You have to look at in in context. Dictating to another person that they have "no right" to do something is usually done, at least in part, to get a rise out of them.



???

Where did I defend "being able to just build where ever you want"???



I draw the line at being reasonable. I have various neighbors overhanging prims on my land. One of them has the last name "Linden".

This thread is about the etiquette of overhanging prims onto Linden land, not building on other resident's land which is entirely different.

--Hugsy