Security orbs and navigable waters

[Tonya Souther]

13 hours ago, Mollymews said:

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

The minimap display won't tell you about a channel that's "just there for the use of our renters".

[Mollymews]

1 hour ago, Tonya Souther said:

The minimap display won't tell you about a channel that's "just there for the use of our renters".

when we are traveling on a public right-of-way then is always best to treat adjacent parcels as private property and stay off them if we don't want to get ejected by a orb

[diamond Marchant]

Buyer Beware

Always verify who owns adjacent parcels. I was just looking at some Satori parcels... one was insanely priced and self described as "access to sailing waters" and mentioned the Blake, however, it was completely cut off from protected water by orbed private parcels. On the flip side, another was reasonably priced (in relative terms), self described as "oceanfront", and has 128m of beach access to protected water. Do your research before buying anything!

[Tary Allen]

Honest, if you want open access to water the best way is to get a Linden Home (stilt or houseboat) and go through there.

I'm boating around a lot more since I moved to a stilt, not always near my place but I rezz my boat somewhere in Belli and go exploring.

Mainland only on foot or some wearable and keep myself mostly to the roads. 

 

 

[diamond Marchant]

Here is an excellent example of a "booby trap" banline, where a resident parcel is adjacent to Linden protected water but there is no visual clue that a parcel boundary exists AND the parcel has banlines. One might expect the banlines to start where the dock starts. The mini map shows the banlined parcel in pink but that pops up to late to avoid the banline.

[belindacarson]

7 hours ago, diamond Marchant said:

Here is an excellent example of a "booby trap" banline, where a resident parcel is adjacent to Linden protected water but there is no visual clue that a parcel boundary exists AND the parcel has banlines. One might expect the banlines to start where the dock starts. The mini map shows the banlined parcel in pink but that pops up to late to avoid the banline.

It's not a booby trap, it's a resident using the tools provided by LL to secure their parcel,

[Aethelwine]

8 hours ago, diamond Marchant said:

Here is an excellent example of a "booby trap" banline, where a resident parcel is adjacent to Linden protected water but there is no visual clue that a parcel boundary exists AND the parcel has banlines. One might expect the banlines to start where the dock starts. The mini map shows the banlined parcel in pink but that pops up to late to avoid the banline.

I suspect since they are putting up docking they are intending to use it to rezz their own boats to travel and that a polite message likely to get them to change their settings. 

21 minutes ago, belindacarson said:

It's not a booby trap, it's a resident using the tools provided by LL to secure their parcel,

It is both, it is not an either\or situation.

[Coffee Pancake]

8 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

I suspect since they are putting up docking they are intending to use it to rezz their own boats to travel and that a polite message likely to get them to change their settings. 

But .. what's wrong with this bit of water .. 

[Aethelwine]

7 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

But .. what's wrong with this bit of water .. 

Nothing is wrong with it but you are missing the point. 

Anyone travelling the route would see open waterways with a bit of jetty, nothing to indicate there would be a banline there.

99 times out of a 100 you could drift into a parcel with no problems. That reality of experience creates an expectation. 

Anyone that has lived in areas like that will say the way they have set their security is a trap. 

[diamond Marchant]

Further explanation of why sailors consider this a trap....

Sailors typically obey channel markers (buoys). In this case, if you are westbound, you will sail to the right of the buoy and avoid the banline. But eastbound, your intent is sail to the left of the buoy beyond the dock (thinking the water to the left of the dock is safe).

We respect protect rights and do not wish to trespass. We encourage land owners to fully mark their banned parcels.

[belindacarson]

2 hours ago, diamond Marchant said:

Further explanation of why sailors consider this a trap....

Sailors typically obey channel markers (buoys). In this case, if you are westbound, you will sail to the right of the buoy and avoid the banline. But eastbound, your intent is sail to the left of the buoy beyond the dock (thinking the water to the left of the dock is safe).

We respect protect rights and do not wish to trespass. We encourage land owners to fully mark their banned parcels.

I'd say the landowners HAVE marked out their plot, using the tools provided by LL that allow them to do so.

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, belindacarson said:

I'd say the landowners HAVE marked out their plot, using the tools provided by LL that allow them to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

And I just wrote down what I think of your analysis. However, it was also invisible.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Theresa Tennyson

[Rowan Amore]

Looks to me.as.If they have visible buoys in the water.  Those generally denote lanes/lines not to cross in my experience.

[Aethelwine]

54 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Looks to me.as.If they have visible buoys in the water.  Those generally denote lanes/lines not to cross in my experience.

The marker in one direction indicates to go away from the banline on the other it directs people in to it. Whilst I wouldn#t expect people to look up the meanings of the marker buoys it is far from clear keep off my parcel is its intended meaning.

Regardless of that... 

There is a fundamental principle of reciprocity in all moral systems. In the Judeo-Christian tradition it is the "do unto others" principle, it is replicated in other moral frameworks in similar ways.

In this case the the person with the banlines parcel is using his neighbours parcel to launch any boats on the coast side of the decking, and likely on the other side too unless they launch their boat using edit tools.

The waterway looks like it will be open, especially if already in the parcel they are using for access, because it just defies ethics to set your security up to rely on your neighbours charity whilst denying that to others.

Why to me it looks like an accidental security measure, or maybe only half considered one.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Gabriele Graves]

My opinion is that morality doesn't come into this at all, it is fallacious argument and one that is used in an attempt to make people feel that they are doing something wrong about exercising the valid choices they have available to them just because they don't suit other people.  My further opinion is that this is poor form and is evidence of an off-kilter sense of entitlement.  I don't have any tolerance or sympathy for that point of view at all.

In the scenario that was presented above, it all seems crystal clear to me.
If someone decides to sail in the waters over LL protected land then they can be sure that their journey will be unimpeded until that protected land stops.  If they decide to sail instead over private land, which there was no need to in this case,  just because some of it is open and can be navigated today does not follow that a) it will always be the case and b) that the whole of their journey will be unimpeded.
It is an error to make the assumption that water navigation over private land will be and should be unimpeded.  It is that error of assumption that should be corrected.

Someone is able to navigate waters over private land only at the grace of the land owner(s) of that land, it is not a moral offense for them to prevent traversal in any way.  There is no obligation, moral or otherwise to allow people through.

Similarly, marking their waters is entirely up to them, there is no obligation for them to have to do so.

If that doesn't suite, hard cheese.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Coffee Pancake]

4 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

And I just wrote down what I think of your analysis. However, it was also invisible.

Yes but it's actually not invisible because they have the frikin mini map on screen.

They can see the perfectly fine channel to sail down with the parcel mini map (that if you're on a third party viewer, that's the enhanced mini map that myself and kitty created back in 2012 specifically to help people get around the private land we all have).

 

[Aethelwine]

4 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

My opinion is that morality doesn't come into this at all, it is fallacious argument and one that is used in an attempt to make people feel that they are doing something wrong about exercising the valid choices they have available to them just because they don't suit other people.  My further opinion is that this is poor form and is evidence of an off-kilter sense of entitlement.  I don't have any tolerance or sympathy for that point of view at all.

In the scenario that was presented above, it all seems crystal clear to me.
If someone decides to sail in the waters over LL protected land then they can be sure that their journey will be unimpeded until that protected land stops.  If they decide to sail instead over private land, which there was no need to in this case,  just because some of it is open and can be navigated today does not follow that a) it will always be the case and b) that the whole of their journey will be unimpeded.
It is an error to make the assumption that water navigation over private land will be and should be unimpeded.  It is that error of assumption that should be corrected.

Someone is able to navigate waters over private land only at the grace of the land owner(s) of that land, it is not a moral offense for them to prevent traversal in any way.  There is no obligation, moral or otherwise to allow people through.

Similarly, marking their waters is entirely up to them, there is no obligation for them to have to do so.

If that doesn't suite, hard cheese.

My bringing morality into it is not to judge the individual but the situation ahead of you when sailing. I have no idea the intention of the individual to judge them.

But we all have moral faculties, I can't imagine going through life without referring to them to interpret situations, they are fundamental to what makes society function. If you are calling that fallacious, then I have no idea where to even start. We have a fundamentally different conception of how societies work and our places within them.

My point is anyone with experience sailing around waterways like that would look at the lay out of the parcels, and interpret that as an indication that the waterway was likely to be open. 99.99% of the time that analysis would be correct. It is in that that the trap is created and why I think that the landowners security an oversight or unintended accident. My view on this comes from experience of talking to landowners who have done this before and my experience bears out that judgment.

I think it very fortunate that in world, the view on this seems to be very different to the contrary views brought up on these threads every time it gets brought up.

[Persephone Emerald]

What about this situation? It's not a security orb, but solid off-sim rocks built over a strip of Linden Protected Water Land. The grey strip in front is the walkway in front of a store, marking the edge of the store-owner's property.

[Gabriele Graves]

38 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

My bringing morality into it is not to judge the individual but the situation ahead of you when sailing. I have no idea the intention of the individual to judge them.

But we all have moral faculties, I can't imagine going through life without referring to them to interpret situations, they are fundamental to what makes society function. If you are calling that fallacious, then I have no idea where to even start. We have a fundamentally different conception of how societies work and our places within them.

My point is anyone with experience sailing around waterways like that would look at the lay out of the parcels, and interpret that as an indication that the waterway was likely to be open. 99.99% of the time that analysis would be correct. It is in that that the trap is created and why I think that the landowners security an oversight or unintended accident. My view on this comes from experience of talking to landowners who have done this before and my experience bears out that judgment.

I think it very fortunate that in world, the view on this seems to be very different to the contrary views brought up on these threads every time it gets brought up.

I consider myself an experienced sailor inworld, not just a person who posts here.  Not just a sailor but an experienced aviator and a road vehicle user as well. In fact my forum time is minuscule compared to the time I spend inworld.  I have encountered ban lines and orbs a plenty in my time for all vehicle types.  I just wouldn't make the kinds of assumptions that you and some others are doing here.  Do I wander from LL protected areas onto private land, sure I do.  What I don't do is blame the restrictions that I encounter on anything other than I decided to go onto private land.  I made that choice.

If I encounter restrictions, I either move to a better spot and start again or I finish that trip where I encountered the restriction.
Can mainland be problematic for vehicles, sure but it isn't the huge deal that some people make it out to be.
So people really need to put their grown up pants on and just deal with it in my opinion because it is crying about nothing much.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Gabriele Graves]

23 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

What about this situation? It's not a security orb, but solid off-sim rocks built over a strip of Linden Protected Water Land. The grey strip in front is the walkway in front of a store, marking the edge of the store-owner's property.

If it is encroaching over LL protected land then it deserves an AR.  There's not excuse for building that kind of thing across a public waterway but as always it's up to LL in each circumstance.  Sometimes they allow things like this in some cases.

[belindacarson]

Aethelwine I've always enjoyed reading your posts, but please don't try to bring religion into it nor trying to claim a moral high ground 🙂

 

If the landowner has secured their land using available tools, or even a zero second orb that is 100% legal, their right to do so, and perfectly moral for them to want to protect "their" SL space especially if it's their "safe space".

And if I'm honest, if somebody was bugging me about my own land settings I'd add them to the ban list on purpose and mute them for the sheer cheek of it.

[Eowyn Southmoor]

7 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

My point is anyone with experience sailing around waterways like that would look at the lay out of the parcels, and interpret that as an indication that the waterway was likely to be open. 99.99% of the time that analysis would be correct.

Sorry Flower, I have to disagree with that. I would never assume that any parcel next to a protected waterway was open access - i would instead simply pay attention to the mini map and sail straight down the protected channel.  There's no need to be deviating from the LL protected area in this instance.

Secondly, assuming that the area was open being correct 99% of the time I think is also rather overstating it.  If that was the case, then sailors would rarely hit one of these banlines, and therefore have little to complain about.  The fact that you hear sailors (and drivers too) constantly complain about banlines indicates that they are in fact widely used throughout SL - therefore logically it makes more sense to assume that any non-protected parcel is a no-go zone.

There seems to be a lot of assumption going on here which seems to be the cause of these issues.

Assuming that any open water is automatically sailable - leads to randomly sailing into peoples property and encountering banlines and/or orbs

Assuming that buoys/markers are utilized in the same way as RL - leads to RL sailors in SL taking routes which lead them into peoples parcels and again, encountering the aforementioned banlines/orbs.

I've been sailing in SL for 7 years now, and yet I still don't know the first thing about RL sailing or anything else to do with it, and that includes marker buoys.  Diamonds eastbound/westbound example shown above might make perfect sense for a RL sailor, but for the many people who only sail in SL, it might as well be gibberish. 

To call something like this a booby-trap makes it sound like the parcel owner has deliberately set their land up in such a way as to trap or harass sailors, when i think nothing could be further from the truth. More than likely, they slapped down one buoy to show where the edge of their parcel was, and decided that was good enough, and that most people would simply use the LL channel.  To me, this is a case where sailors are applying RL ideology to SL - and that doesn't always work.

Oh, and of course Gabriele clearly types faster than me and beat me to it 

[Persephone Emerald]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

If it is encroaching over LL protected land then it deserves an AR.  There's not excuse for building that kind of thing across a public waterway but as always it's up to LL in each circumstance.  Sometimes they allow things like this in some cases.

There's no reason right now for anyone to want to sail over this water, since there's no open water directly next to it. At a later date someone might want to sail or fly over it. In the meantime, I'm not planning to AR the store owner just yet.

[Gabriele Graves]

3 minutes ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

Oh, and of course Gabriele clearly types faster than me and beat me to it 

My fast typing is often my undoing as no matter how many times I proof-read it I generally have to edit the snot out of it after I post it

[Aethelwine]

52 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I consider myself an experienced sailor inworld, not just a person who posts here.  Not just a sailor but an experienced aviator and a road vehicle user as well. In fact my forum time is minuscule compared to the time I spend inworld.  I have encountered ban lines and orbs a plenty in my time for all vehicle types.  I just wouldn't make the kinds of assumptions that you and some others are doing here.  Do I wander from LL protected areas onto private land, sure I do.  What I don't do is blame the restrictions that I encounter on anything other than I decided to go onto private land.  I made that choice.

If I encounter restrictions, I either move to a better spot and start again or I finish that trip where I encountered the restriction.
Can mainland be problematic for vehicles, sure but it isn't the huge deal that some people make it out to be.
So people really need to put their grown up pants on and just deal with it in my opinion because it is crying about nothing much.

I do exactly the same.

But when travelling through Corsica waterways, around the Atoll or the edge of Satori when you encounter a situation like the one above don't you sigh a moment of relief that you can look around a bit and not focus so much on the protected passage? It seems to me that is human nature. I hear it from others when travelling with them, something I can relate to. 

I hope I am not coming across as crying about anything, on the scale of things these issues are relatively minor. I comment on them purely because I have an interest in them, nothing more.

I plot and regularly run sailing routes for various groups and yacht clubs. I know that when a trap like the above is set if I don't mention it in the instructions some will find it themselves by hitting it. Even when I do mention it some will still hit it, I too don't always read instruction notecards on routes, but that does mean I then have to go looking for a rezz location nearby to mention as well.

And just to be clear when I use the word trap I am not saying the trap has been set intentionally. Like an overhanging branch on a bridleway, traps aren't always set up with the intention to snare someone. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine