Right to Roam

Here in the UK hikers have campaigned for over 75 years for the right to access the countryside that is rightfully ours but has been denied us for centuries by wealthy landowners. In 2000, the government here passed a bill giving every citizen the right to reasonable access to countryside areas, including private estates. I think we need something simillar in SL. Not the right to trample across other peoples property as such, nor anything that would help griefers, but some sort of measure to allow flying vehicles above a certain height to pass harmlessly over peoples' land without suddenly stopping or exploding or crashing etc. There must be a compromise possible that will allow people to use their expensive vehicles and still protect the rights of landowners to privacy.

If you own land in real life, you don't own it all the way up to the edge of space do you? Some sort of "common airspace" above, say 700m, isn't too much to ask is it?

Anyway, that's my proposal - that above 700m the airspace should be accessable by all with no restrictions on scripts and rezzing objects. In essence I am suggesting that LL reclaim the airspace above 700m right accross the mainland so that it is Lindon owned and accessable to all residents. . My understanding is that you can't build above 700m anyway though, so land owners lose nothing anyway.

All those in favour say "Aye"

Everyone except cows and pigs.

I don't want no fat pig pooping on me from 700m.

I must admit, I thought over a certain height airspace was free from "banlines" anyway? (Can't remember off hand -256 metres ring any bells, anyone?)

And Conan, PLEEEEASE - the UK "right to roam" is EXACTLY about trampling over private land that beardy sandal wearers have coveted from afar for many a year simply because someone else owned it (whether private individual, title or no, or a company) and they weren't allowed on it.

/me primes his shotgun...... and lets the bull loose in the field

Inc

That land once belonged to everyone until it was staked out and claimed by force in the middle ages. We're not talking about farmers' fields here, what about places like the Yorkshire Dales, the Peak District and Bodmin Moor?

And yes, land above 700m is free from banlines, but not things like No Script restrictions. That's basically what I'm asking for - that No Script restrictions and parcels not allowing objects to enter have a 700m cut off. Nothing more.

u can build upto 768m

ur asking for ppl to give up their prims so others can use it with their toys and freeload with building that high at the expense of landowner costs

u have the right to fly 50m abouve the land allready

I pay for my land. Go fly on your own place.

While I do like the idea of vehicles being able to pass through, your poll seems to suggest Linden should allow people to just build at a certain height above your land, which I disagree with. That space high above someone's land still represents sim resources like prim capacity and script time. Also, who would be put in charge of maintenance in that space if not the land owner? Would it be a valuable option, or just a nuisance for the person(s) paying to operate the simulator?

I thought the ban line cutoff was at 768m.

I know you can build at 700m because I've done it.

People put skyboxes at 650M or so, I know. So you would allow any passerby to build above 700, thereby exposing people's skyboxes to obnoxious screaming scripts and horrendous looking builds?

Also, if I'm understanding what you're proposing (please correct me if wrong), ths seems like a nightmare from a sim management point of view. The objects and scripts running above 700m use up server resources and thus have to be counted toward the sim total allocations. So, effectively, at 700m a free-for-all sandbox would exist on every sim, and the sim owner would have no way of controlling it. Or the lag and annoyance it might cause. ew.

Alright make it 768m instead then! Stop picking at the details. I'm not asking anyone to give up anything. If you can't build above 768m, then anything above that height is wasted space and may aswell not belong to you.

And, no we don't. If scripts are disabled vehicles don't work, even if we were at 768,000,000m.

I;m asking people to vote on the principle, not the details here. No reason why above 768m it can't be a separate sim. SL is three dimensional afterall.

I thought it was 767m

Okay, let me re phrase some of the details of the proposal, since people are determined to nitpick

1. Make it above 768m instead.
2. Make above 768 not part of the sim below it - make it a different sim.
3. Don't let people build there - just put a 768m ceiling on parcel owners No Script restriction.

That should solve all of the minor problems everyone has so far come up with.

I'd much rather that LL give us a black out zone somewhere in the sky where we could ACTUALLY have a little privacy. I live up above and leave my land open to anyone, so long as they don't want to build and such.

General ban lines only go up to 50m. If you explicitly ban a particular avatar, they extend up to 768m.

No one can reliably control airspace above 768 Meters. So you ALREADY HAVE your unrestricted airspace. Just fly up to 800M or higher, and sail along unhindered.

Land owners may currently control air space to 768 Meters, but ban-lines only go that high in regards to specificly named banned individuals. LL has already kow-towed to such requests as yours, making general ban lines effective only to 50 M above the terrain level for anyone not explicitly named. So to protect my skybox from all and sundry waltzing through, I have to rely on a seperate security system to eject them. For that matter, if my home on the ground has a deep basement, I have to use a security orb now, because the effect of ban lines follows the terrain, not my rooftops. Or at least, I would have to if I lived in a normal sim. I've moved to a private off-the-map sim now, just to escape the people who think they have an automatic right to use the resources that I pay for.

I would stronly oppose lowering the max height at which a land owner can build. My skybox is way up at 700 M specificly to make it impossible to see it from the ground. I am not willing to lower it, and in so doing to further clutter up the appearance of the sky, just so you can fly a little lower over my land.

RL laws regarding airspace are as they are simply because it is not possible for a RL Land owner to build all that far above the ground. No one can build a 500M tall tower in their back yard. So it's safe to allow planes to fly lower. And even then, general aviation is kept fairly high above populated areas, to reduce noise on the ground.

In America, trespassing on private property is still very much a crime. You can't cut through my yard and hop my fences to get to the other side of the block, just because you are too lazy to walk around the block. You don't have a right to 'reasonable access' to the shade trees in my back yard, nor to my swimming pool.

and the cows and pigs?

I wish we had the possibility of some kind of airspace somehow disconnected from normal sim limits, like an extra layer or something just for vehicles....

1. So now we are going to stack sims? Why don't we separate underwater and underground while we are at it. I'm sure someone is into some sort of Mole role play. I'm sure no one would mind a giant penis rising from the ground either.

2. Stacking sims = waste. My sky, My Space. I don't want people in my skyboxes or game levels.

3. Sounds like a Griefers wet dream.

I agree about the cows and the pigs

Does this mean basically what you're suggesting is adding more Linden sandboxes, but for some reason, put them above our land? Are you suggesting permanent building in that area, or just sat-on vehicles?

You have no skyboxes above 768m and you know it. That's impossible. It's not your sky above 768m at the moment either, since you can't use it for anything.

Why are you and I the only people who understand that this is exactly what I am suggesting?

Even in Second Life, it would seem that envious, grasping beggars seek to demand through mewling, plaintive, petulant complaint what they have not earned, for which they cannot and will not pay.

There is no "right to roam" on private property. Regardless of the provenance of property in the mists of history, that land is now rightfully owned by someone who exchanged value for it. Moaning about how it was "taken by force" by people generations deceased is as foolish as caving to the demands of the Triceratops Lobby, whose constituents even now demand the restoration of the ancestral lands taken from them through force by scheming, wealthy mammals who dared to trump them through evolution.

In a virtual world that exists for the sole purpose of selling property to those willing to pay for it, your childish demand to walk on others' property is even more ridiculous. Did evil, wealthy, White European Male landowners steal the virtual land from the peace-loving electrons formerly occupying the bandwidth in the ether?

Take your proposal and kindly choke on it. Do a search for the mature-content parcel "Philstown" and stop on by sometime, if you'd really like a place to roam that you do not own. I'll gladly show you the hospitality we all should reserve for beggars and looters.

Thank you!

Okay, I'll sign!



Umm.. But will this effect Colette too?

* runs and hides *






Just kidding Colette!. You're a sweetie really!

So you suggest that by buying land you should own the sky above it? Where does your land stop - the Moon? Mars? The Orion Nebula?

I have not made any demands - I have asked people's thoughts on a proposal.

Oh, there's also me, after having been throwm out of TARDISes and airships a few times ...