New proposal only slightly related to the Right to Roam thread

Yes, but there are many lands that don't have banlines but do prevent vehicles via the "No Object Entry" option. From speaking to land owners, I gather that a lot of the time this is to stop griefing/listening devices, and the fact that it stops vehicles too is an unintended by-product for most of them. Of course some people will not want vehicles either, then they have the choice - but atleas this way those that only want to stop listening devices and stray bullets can while allowing vehicles. It's all about land owner choice.

This entire discussion is a waste simply because, even without the banlines, security systems will replace it (just make security system creators more money).

If you set the land to only be accessed by specific people then it also appears to be infinite then. I have been stopped above 1000m by banlines, saying I am banned from the parcel. However, it is a parcel I have never been to, owned by someone I have never met and when I view the land tab the ban list is empty.

Iki; yes, but we're not trying to find a way round banlines anyway - the point of the proposal is to still let owners prevent people accessing their land if they wish, but allow those that don't care to be more flexible if they choose.

well they sound like totally unreasonable people.

Hmmmm. Yes, but no way around this.

Allowing only those you want is a lot easier than trying to ban 4857342875832465 griefer alts. *shrugs*

Again, there's no way for the system to distinguish between griefers and valid fliers.

My suggestion would be to talk to any landowner in the area you routinly fly that has ban lines up, and politely ask them if you can be added to such a list to be able to fly. Outside of your "regular" flying area, I'm afraid you'd have to jsut deal with it. Lots of open skys. I know, I routinly fly all the time and I run into more problems with jsut border crossings than anythign else. In fact, I can't remember the last time I hit a banline wall.

~Jessy

You missing the point. If owners wanted to be more flexible, they could just get a security system and set their own range. Most security systems have ranges from 30m up to 96m. And those can be used without banlines, but burn prims. So that "option" is already available, but a lot of owners prefer to eliminate the hassle all together. I still think that "flexible" option should be treated as a toll-road which allows people up to 20-25 seconds to go through (plenty of time on most vehicles). Something like $10 lindens paid to the owner. That allow people to pass through and keep griefers from hanging around.

I think Conan makes a fair and equitable proposal, and one that ultimately all residents can live with if implemented.

I'm not sure about LL making a change though. Lately I've been attempting to explore the Linden roads. It's extremely difficult to achieve. There are hardly any places to rez your vehicle and the road itself won't allow it either. People continuously put ban lines right up to the edge of the road, so the slightest steering miscalculation will cause you to get stuck or crash and lose your vehicle.

Sorry, missed that. Probably have hit that once or twice and assumed it was another full parcel.

Imo, it should be more like L$100 (and the owner gets to use the flyer as target practice - j/k).

But this whole thread is pointless. The Lindens would never agree to make the changes being presented by this thread - even if there were a substantial number (over 10,000) of users that requested it.

The whole idea causes too many problems - for the Lindens, and for users that are opposed to the idea - which the 1st poll showed are in the majority.

What's the point of pushing a failed idea? Unless, of coarse, Conan's real agenda is to sell lots more balloons and biplanes.

I thought the open airspace above 700 was a good idea, since you cant have a skybox up that high, why not just set it up where at 1000m everybody can fly because ban lines dont do squat for roaming cameras and i do think its fair and helpful if the land owner had to look at the ban lines too. I lived next to a parcel that was abandoned back in like early 2006 and it had lines up, the lines are sill up there and nobody has lived there

Also a person with a house put up ban lines and has not logged in for 6 months probably more, the land has litter all over it with ban lines up and its horrid.

*Owner sees lines
* @ 1000m open airspace

and it may be off topic but when there is obvious litter on a parcel there needs to be a way to remove it,

A way to fix that is buy your own land and build your own roads. I wanted a beach and oceanfront, so every pay day, I extended my land by 512 or 1024 sqm per week until I got to the amount I wanted.

Actually you can have a Skybox up that high. I think the max is 768m up.

the geekier forum members say that there are problems with physics above 750m, and thats why it is a no go zone outside of manually flying in the conventional sense.

I wonder how many landowners out there actually care? OK, we're the vociferious ultra-minority here on the forum; we all yell loud and long about our pet projects. How many SL land owners, out of the 40,000 regulars, actually ever even NOTICE people flying around in vehicles?

Conan, I think it's a good idea, except for the fact that newbie land owners already have so much to learn about SL and land in general, that just choosing a parcel is scary enough. Once they buy the parcel, they have to learn about ALL that other stuff in the About Land window; I'm afraid that your option would be buried somewhere in there. A LOT of people don't understand the no entry/no create options; add one more option and it'll just get ignored anyway.

I dunno, I'm of the ">700m = free air space" crowd anyway.

No entry doesn't really work. I have no entry set (only by group) and still find vehicles next to my house when I log in.

Why is autoreturn not on? And, if you allow build, that is precisely how it can get there.

and like all threads you will always have a vocal few arguing against things for whatever reason.

the proposal makes sense and is well thought out, and wouldnt require much in the way of work to implement. and still has the option to keep things EXACTLY AS THEY ARE for anyones land that wants their "privacy" unmolested. so all the arguments against it are invalid... good luck to you...

and all the other optional ideas tend to make flying "above" 768 or whatever...whats the point of floating around if not to see the scenery?...

it would be great to have a flying carpet with snugglin poses on it one could set to cruise slowly along nice builds and pretty places and sightsee with

and they should fix the roads...i totally agree with that...i dont bother driving because it is so difficult...but to cruise the streets of big builds/urban areas waving at people on the sides would be fun too!

So what JIRA number is this, Conan?

Just wanted to confirm and clarify, as I also had posted some info that now appears incorrect.

Back in February or March, a canoe I was sitting on and piloting was auto-returned right out from under me. When I tested last night, however, I am not able to reproduce this... as long as I am sitting on something, it did not get auto-returned. Not sure what happened that one time it did, unless running into banlines (which was happening at the same time) caused me to un-sit, thus subjecting the canoe to auto-return.

I also found out something interesting about how a sat-on vehicle affects prim count, and how it is affected by entry into a full parcel. It definitely gets counted in the prim count, that I have confirmed multiple times over. However, the way you enter a full parcel makes a major difference in how your vehicle is handled.

When I entered a sim on open land, and THEN crossed into the full parcel, I was able to do so with absolutely no problem. The land window showed those prims were counted, and the available prim count was actually negative and accompanied by the parenthetical statement "## will be deleted" (where ## is the number of prims in my vehicle going over the prim limit). As long as I stayed on the vehicle, nothing was deleted, and the land window kept saying the same thing. When I dismounted, it was returned immediately due to full parcel.

Now when I entered this same land across a sim border (so crossing a sim border at the same time as entering the parcel), it behaved unpredictably. Sometimes it instantly returned my vehicle with a full-parcel error, but other times it deactivated the vehicle but left it there (as long as I was sitting on it).

So it would appear that full parcels are only a problem when combined with the already problematic sim border crossings?

Strangely enough, I also found (at sea level) that barring object entry had no effect on one of my sat-on vehicles. I need to confirm this with another less quirky vehicle.

Seriously, I was a fool to think these things would be consistent or logical. Aside from the consistently problematic sim borders, I am giving up trying to guess where vehicles can go and where they can't!

Just for the record, that quote from the Robert Frost poem "Mending Wall" is completely out of context. The intent of the poem is quite contrary, asking why do we need these barriers between each other. Another part states:
The irony is that the only time he interacts with his neighbor and feels close to him is when they are actively rebuilding the barrier that alienates them from each other.

Not that I don't see your viewpoint (although I don't agree with it)... I just find it amusing that the quote most often used to support it is actually from a rather eloquent argument against it.

Not from me...

Thank you Ava! I'm glad someone else finally pointed this out.

I wasn't quoting anyone nor referencing anything but my own personal experience. Fences are wonderful things. They delineate property. They keep the unwanted from your property. They protect property from those who would destroy it. If I stay on my side of the fence I am not harming my neighbor. Just as when my neighbor stays on her side of the fence she is not harming me.

Wow. I have a feeling you didn't mean this as harshly as you stated it. If you did, I feel sorry for you. You're entitled to believe this, but man, that's just weak and sad.

Oh, I live in the vicinity of a large airport in RL. I could shoot them planes outta the sky with a pea shooter, they're that low! But thankfully, in SL they're not even ten percent as annoying as in RL, and I would gladly fly one, too!


....as long as Conan doesn't decide to invade Poland....the name Godwin is kinda....predestined for that stuff....Conan's Law?