Security orbs and navigable waters

[Rowan Amore]

5 minutes ago, Tonya Souther said:

OK, so let me throw this at you: the parcel with the channel is named "[region] Channel (M) - 15 Minutes Traverse Time". What would you think upon seeing that? And yet that was the channel that was blocked and that produced this whole thread.

I would have gone into the channel to see who owned it before purchasing land if sailing OUT of the lake was my intent.  If owned by a resident, you'll have to decide if the risk of closure is worth the price.

I'm not saying blocking it is the right thing to do.  I'm saying people should do their due diligence before purchasing and not assume people will 'do the right thing' by your definition.

[skepwith]

Some of you people would be shocked if you spent even five minutes reading about real world property law. There is absolutely nowhere in the world where you can blanket prohibit access to your property, and the fact that LL implemented a libertarian fantasy model of land ownership that's counterintuitive and confusing to sane people should be a surprise to no one.

[Tonya Souther]

10 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I would have gone into the channel to see who owned it before purchasing land if sailing OUT of the lake was my intent.  If owned by a resident, you'll have to decide if the risk of closure is worth the price.

I'm not saying blocking it is the right thing to do.  I'm saying people should do their due diligence before purchasing and not assume people will 'do the right thing' by your definition.

And I had no idea - and no way of knowing - that that channel was "there for the use of our renters".

How many people know about your definition of due diligence in this instance? How should they find out? No, "they should just know" is not adequate.

[Rowan Amore]

Just now, Tonya Souther said:

And I had no idea - and no way of knowing - that that channel was "there for the use of our renters".

How many people know about your definition of due diligence in this instance? How should they find out? No, "they should just know" is not adequate.

I explain what due diligence should have been taken in my first paragraph.  If access to open water was YOUR reason for purchasing the parcel, it falls on YOU to be sure there is actually access.   Because "you didn't know" isn't adequate.  

No, not everyone is going to know that.  That is why I've said the issue is with LL and not the land owner using their parcel within the ToS.  

[diamond Marchant]

33 minutes ago, Tonya Souther said:

How many people know about your definition of due diligence in this instance?

As anyone who knows me knows, I am all for cooperative use of private waterways on mainland.

The fact is, if you buy a mainland parcel with the intent of access to Linden protected water, you must verify that the parcel borders on Linden protected water. Otherwise you are depending upon "the kindness of strangers". Note that said strangers can change at any moment due to them selling the parcel you need to pass thru.

Edited July 13, 2022 by diamond Marchant

[Persephone Emerald]

25 minutes ago, skepwith said:

Some of you people would be shocked if you spent even five minutes reading about real world property law. There is absolutely nowhere in the world where you can blanket prohibit access to your property, and the fact that LL implemented a libertarian fantasy model of land ownership that's counterintuitive and confusing to sane people should be a surprise to no one.

While I don't believe RL law relates to SL rules, there are places in the RL world where restriction to beach access is prohibited even when a private citizen owns beach front property. The same would probably be true for access to a public road and is certainly true for aircraft being able to fly over any property except military or government property. 

The idea isn't that anyone should have access to your private property, but that you as a property owner should not be able to restrict their access to free travel on public property (since we don't have teleportation in RL).

Your best solution in this case may be to save a LM to a nearby beach or water parcel that allows you to rez a boat.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[diamond Marchant]

6 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

The idea isn't that anyone should have access to your private property, but that you as a property owner should not be able to restrict their access to free travel on public property

What she said. For example, here is the situation at Lake Tahoe (in California and Nevada). "“Lake Tahoe is a United States Navigable Waterway and as such no one can own any of the beaches of Lake Tahoe up to 2 feet past the ‘HIGH TIDE LINE’ as per the Federal Navigation Act of 1892." It means that the entire shoreline is accessible to the public by boat.

Edited July 13, 2022 by diamond Marchant
more info

[diamond Marchant]

38 minutes ago, skepwith said:

the fact that LL implemented a libertarian fantasy model of land ownership that's counterintuitive and confusing to sane people should be a surprise to no one.

I think LL realizes this, and when they invented Bellisseria, they did not repeat their error. In Belli, you can navigate by boat between any resident water parcels (houseboat, water stilt, pier stilt).  All on protected water. This is the default and no inspection is required.

Edited July 13, 2022 by diamond Marchant

[Rowan Amore]

I had a friend who owned a home right on a reservoir near me.  He was NOT allowed to fish FROM his property.  He could tie his boat to his property and fish from there.

1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said:

that you as a property owner should not be able to restrict their access to free travel on public property

At issue here is the person is blocking access to open water ON/THROUGH private property.   The channel is apparently not a protected waterway although it might look like one.  If someone is blocking a public access, AR the heck out of them if they won't listen to reason.

[Sammy Huntsman]

2 hours ago, skepwith said:

Some of you people would be shocked if you spent even five minutes reading about real world property law. There is absolutely nowhere in the world where you can blanket prohibit access to your property, and the fact that LL implemented a libertarian fantasy model of land ownership that's counterintuitive and confusing to sane people should be a surprise to no one.

But I think what you need to realize, is that this is a virtual world. Not governed by those real-world laws. That being said, I don't think that land ownership is libertarian. I also don't think or want lindens getting heavily involved. 

[Sparkle Bunny]

3 hours ago, skepwith said:

There is absolutely nowhere in the world where you can blanket prohibit access to your property

I assume that none of the advocates of zero-second orbs live anywhere near a flight path. Imagine having a whole bunch of complete strangers passing over your house for a second or two. The horror!

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

6 minutes ago, Sparkle Bunny said:

I assume that none of the advocates of zero-second orbs live anywhere near a flight path. Imagine having a whole bunch of complete strangers passing over your house for a second or two. The horror!

If you speak of RL, I can assure you that such a situation sucks, unless you want to wear ear plugs 24/7. 

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

I had a friend who owned a home right on a reservoir near me.  He was NOT allowed to fish FROM his property.  He could tie his boat to his property and fish from there.

At issue here is the person is blocking access to open water ON/THROUGH private property.   The channel is apparently not a protected waterway although it might look like one.  If someone is blocking a public access, AR the heck out of them if they won't listen to reason.

I'm not disagreeing with you. There are 2 separate but related issues at play here, but neither of them relates directly to RL law.

1. The rights of a person who "owns" virtual property in SL.

2. The rights of people who want to move around SL.

On Second Life mainland, being landlocked by the property around one's own property does not limit our movement because we can teleport. Thus there is no "legal" expectation that we should be able to move through another person's virtual property. If on the other hand someone is blocking public space, such as by having a prim blocking it, then they are breaking the rules of SL and that object may be removed and returned to its owner. If someone "owns" (actually leases) property in Bellisseria they may not impede others flying over their property with a security orb that has less than a 15 second timer - unless they're banning a specific person with their ban list. On another private estate they might be subject to other rules that limit their use and restrictions from use for their property.

3. There are also community expectations for behavior that aren't codified as rules. Allowing people to move over one's property when one is not present on it might be considered one of these expectations, but it's not a rule. 

[Mollymews]

5 hours ago, Tonya Souther said:

How am I supposed to know it's private land?

Edit to add: And in RL, I can fly pretty much anywhere I want except for places that that are restricted by government edict - and those places are clearly marked on aviation charts. On the water in RL, the story is much the same.

Linden Viewer Second Life Release 6.6.2.573023 (64bit) has parcel boundaries (charting) on the minimap now

Catznip then Firestorm et al, have been providing minimaps with charting capability since quite a number of years now

 

[Tonya Souther]

39 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

If you speak of RL, I can assure you that such a situation sucks, unless you want to wear ear plugs 24/7. 

Really? Now, if you live close to an airport, that's one thing, but if you don't, then a single-engine piston airplane flying over at 5000 feet or so is not going to be something you notice - unless you're a pilot, that is, and like looking up at airplanes.

Similarly, an aircraft flying at 150 or 200 meters over your property on the surface isn't going to affect you at all. (Distances in SL are compressed, relative to RL, when it comes to flying, simply because otherwise region crossings happen far too often to allow for any real flying before things go south. My Twin Otter cruises between 16 and 20 knots in SL; the RL version cruises at about 150 to 160.)

[Tonya Souther]

Just now, Mollymews said:

Linden Viewer Second Life Release 6.6.2.573023 (64bit) has parcel boundaries (charting) on the minimap now

Catznip then Firestorm et al, have been providing minimaps with charting capability since quite a number of years now

That's half the answer. The other half is whether the parcel is Linden-owned, or private but open, or private but with a security orb that allows transiting, or private but with a security orb that is set to a short enough time to not allow transiting, or private with a zero-second orb, or private with ban lines.

[Mollymews]

1 minute ago, Tonya Souther said:

That's half the answer. The other half is whether the parcel is Linden-owned, or private but open, or private but with a security orb that allows transiting, or private but with a security orb that is set to a short enough time to not allow transiting, or private with a zero-second orb, or private with ban lines.

if we can know where the public-right-of-ways are (the minimap charts let us know) then when we stick to the public-right-of-ways then we will never get hit by an orb

addressing a part of the other half

when we have a proximity parcel, near a public-right-of-way but not immediately adjacent then we use a scripted jump to launch our vehicle

like our vehicle is rezzed on our parcel launch pad, boat cradle, etc. We sit on our vehicle. Press "Launch" button on the vehicle script menu and the vehicle 'jumps" ( llSetRegionPos ) to a position on the public-right-of-way parcel. Then off we go

when we come home, then from anywhere on our home region we press "Dock" button. And it "jumps" our vehicle onto our parcel launch pad / boat cradle. And we and our vehicle are home

 

[Coffee Pancake]

2 hours ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

If you speak of RL, I can assure you that such a situation sucks, unless you want to wear ear plugs 24/7. 

Sucks is an understatement

 

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

4 hours ago, Tonya Souther said:

Really? Now, if you live close to an airport, that's one thing, but if you don't, then a single-engine piston airplane flying over at 5000 feet or so is not going to be something you notice - unless you're a pilot, that is, and like looking up at airplanes.

Similarly, an aircraft flying at 150 or 200 meters over your property on the surface isn't going to affect you at all. (Distances in SL are compressed, relative to RL, when it comes to flying, simply because otherwise region crossings happen far too often to allow for any real flying before things go south. My Twin Otter cruises between 16 and 20 knots in SL; the RL version cruises at about 150 to 160.)

With all due respect, I don't think you can say what will or will not affect another person. Some people are extremely sensitive to loud noises. I'm happy for you that you aren't one of them.

[belindacarson]

Pity about the sense of entitlement still showing up and trying to justify it 😒

[Aethelwine]

2 hours ago, belindacarson said:

Pity about the sense of entitlement still showing up and trying to justify it 😒

Indeed, although I think not in the way you imagine it. 

No one is immune from criticism, whether traveller or landowner or both.

What I see objectionable in threads like this is the claimed entitlement to an immunity from criticism for landowners. 

Criticism should always be measured, considerate of both sides if it is to be constructive. But even when it is not and it is merely an expression of frustration it is still permitted speech. 

[Love Zhaoying]

7 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Sucks is an understatement

 

Similar to hovering helicopters.

[Aethelwine]

13 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

I would have gone into the channel to see who owned it before purchasing land if sailing OUT of the lake was my intent.  If owned by a resident, you'll have to decide if the risk of closure is worth the price.

I'm not saying blocking it is the right thing to do.  I'm saying people should do their due diligence before purchasing and not assume people will 'do the right thing' by your definition.

This is some thing I learnt from experience. 

The first little parcel I bought advertised as protected access to the Blake Sea, just 150m2 parcel but enough for my loonetta, a few prims to replicate a Dock with a hut on it a chair and my coffee machine. A little dream come true, until I tried to actually navigate my way out the inlet to the open water. I think likely the parcel was not missold to me and there was a protected route, but without knowing the show parcel boundaries trick navigating the banlines and orbs a painful lesson in failure even after managing to make it out a few times, the when's to take a sharp right and when to go left, unclear from any visual clue. I ended up abandoning it, it seemed at the time it had been missold and I would rather lose the premium I paid than sell it on as a protected access parcel. 

I went on to a rental instead with a covenant preventing oppressive security. Whilst not technically mainland the sailors cove, Seychelles, second Norway, fairchang estates deliver what people want without the hassles. 

[Aethelwine]

On 7/12/2022 at 9:24 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

You know what's really selfish.

Demanding that other people contribute to your SL.

The only time I recall encountering that was exploring a water way in one of the color regions. Paying a toll to pass through their land not something I would characterise in that example as being selfish, misguided because I doubt many would consider it good value. I suppose if I relied on it to get to a protected waterway I might think it a bit selfish. 

I don't know if it is still there, it has been a while since I have gone exploring off the routes I know around there. 

[Aethelwine]

I suppose one of my neighbours that has security up and are hoping to sell their land for 150,000 L$ might also qualify, as selfish... But misguided probably better description, they just earn a wall around their parcel to obscure my view of the banline. They aren't going to get paid well over market value for what is now a blocked parcel.