Right to Roam

No Build. It is not necessary to build there. Merely that sat-on vehicles should be able to pass through it.

As I pointed out, above 768m you're not using the land - you physically can't - it's wasted space at the moment.

You can fly now above the banlines. Its only the skyhouse security orbs that can be a problem (I use them myself) and they usually give a timely warning.

This is a good point!

It could lead to millions of peace loving aliens in other galaxies being banned from Second Life.. forever!.

...or until they get another alt.

Again, missing the point. It's not tresspassing to fly a plane a mile above your yard is it?

welcome to 2007. preserve our borders, language and culture!

oh wait. wrong format.

As mentionned - the ban lines aren't the problem - although I just got stopped by some at 820m, so those saying they stop at 768m have clearly missed some exceptions. It;s the No Script restriction that is the problem here - the one and only problem.

I think you should thoroughly read an entire post before commenting on it. Conan referred to the hiking trails in Europe as an example. He was simply asking for space to use for flying in the sky's far above the land.

Seems to me you wasted a lot of key strokes on a debate Conan wasn't even having.

His post reeks of the attitude of entitlement that motivates those who demand access to what is not theirs. The message, and its implication, are clear. Semantic gyrations after the fact change nothing.

Unless you've downloaded a version of second life that includes outer space and planets beyond it, your attempt to equate real life land and space with that available in Second Life is absurd. (For that matter, claims to an outer space that none of us can yet reach are as silly as arguing over who owns the moon, or the ozone layer, though beggars like you will find a way to demand that they be given a piece of that action as well.) In a virtual world, the airspace above the land is as much a part of the parcel as is the land below it, up to the under-800-meter ceiling (or whatever it is with the next release).

More importantly, ANY PRIM REZZED WITHIN THAT AIRSPACE COUNTS AGAINST THE OWNER'S total. Until that virtual reality is changed, your demands and your whining are quite immaterial. The land owner owns any and all space in which the rezzing of prims will count against his or her total.

You want space so much, BUY YOUR OWN LAND. Stop demanding access to others. Property ownership *is* access rights. I've no patience for communists who seek to demand one through eliminating the other.

You, me and Alyx, that is....

I don't know if there is any technological possibility for that, but I think it would be great.

Minus fifty hojillion points for being unable to type two extra letters.

And no; just allowing access up there does not use prims, there is already an enforced auto-return rule above that height anyways (24 hours above 768, instantly above 4000), so not a huge deal.

Although I just admit, the "My land, my rules" argument is compelling, I think LL have more or less established that above 768 is "no mans land".

Not true. Shop around, the means are commercially available. It's *very* possible and there's a lot up there.

I do like the idea of free skies, though. Caledon has a ban on sky junk below 512m altitude, unless it's something like a zeppelin or a skymountain or other natural wonder.

I vote yes. Not that I care really but if it annoys Elmore I'm for it.

The only way *ban* lines get you that high up is if you are, well, banned. Anyone can BAN you from their property at any height. IIRC a true ban goes up to infinity. As it should be.

But an access restriction is ground height + 50 meters, IIRC.

I have neither demanded nor whined - I have asked for opinions on a principle

Perhaps you have trouble reading.

As for being a communist - I am quite the reverse. But the simple fact is you don't own the land above 768m at the moment anyway - it is dead space, unused and unusable. There's nothing I could want less than to stray onto your land where I may catch something nasty (with a rash).

Not to be too contrary, but people can and do build over 768 meters. It's functional enough that you could have a shop there, or a secret hangout. Object physics seems broken up there though.

Anyway, I say... yeah, people should be able to fly their vehicles over my parcel even if the parcel's full.

Precisely the point I have been trying to get across, thank Reitsuki. Above 768m it already belongs to no one.

There are ways, but none without a reasonable degree of cheating, at least not the last time I checked. I used to do it just for the hell of it, but not being able to do squat up there once I'm up there kinda kills the whole concept.

LOL. Amen to that

Well, no, it still belongs to you. Prims up there count against your prim count, for example. As long as that remains true, there is a compelling reason in my mind to be against what you're talking about.

But it's like the space below the ground - it belongs to you too, but there isn't much you can do with it.

You have forwarded a proposition that amounts to the nationalization of privately owned property -- the Lindens "reclaiming" property now owned by private individuals, in the name of community access. This is communism in its most base form, and your proposal is indeed the demand for the confiscation of virtual property from those who now hold the access rights to that property. You would not make your proposal, nor support it in arguing over it, if you did not wish it to occur. Are we to believe you simply sit in front of your computer thinking up intellectual baubles to float for the sheer joy of theoretical debate? No, you wish to see your proposal enacted, or you would not float it.

As long as Second Life's virtual land costs ACTUAL money to buy, and given that those property owners bought that land with the understanding that their ownership (access) rights were defined before the fact, you cannot then advocate (as you are doing) the confiscation of some or all of those access rights in the name of public access or a whimsical and fictional "right to roam." To do so is immoral; it is communism brought in all its goose-stepping, brown-shirted glory to the virtual lands of Second Life. Your proposal is grotesque and offensive.

It would be if I could live a mile above my yard.

Seriously though, I have my skybox right in the vicinity you're talking about and I don't particularly want people flying by outside my window if I can help it.

See below as my browser just went haywire.

You're wrong. I'm proposing that land already not owned is put to good use. It's not yours at the moment. Again, your reading problem has forced me to repeat myself.

How have you managed to build above 768m?

My only problem with your proposal is that the view at 700m is awfully dull. I think I'd get bored quickly. If I fly a plane in RL I have legal access low enough to enjoy the countryside.

I think the sky's should be open access just like I think most of the waterways should as well. How to manage that in a virtual world is the issue obviously.