Canal / Channel / Cave canal protection

[Odynn 2,248]

We all know highways are protected from any unwanted modifications by the GM team.

 

I'm suggesting that any canals, channels (dredged path in shallow water) or cave canals have the same protection. 2 or 3 tiles wide (paving or not to signal them - buoys anyone ?) and deep enough for all boats (-24 depth) as requirement.

 

Why, because they usually involve a lot more time than any highway need, can be destroyed in a heartbeat and actually need the whole heritage process (which add more work for the GM team) to have the same level of protection highways currently have.

[Yaga 2,887]

+1

 

They should be at least 2 tiles wide and paved to be protected

 

[Pingpong 1,070]

+1

[Sunnyside 78]

+1

[Steveleeb 1,067]

+1

[Darmalus 631]

+1

[Aariez 87]

On 11 September 2016 at 8:20 PM, Yaga said:

+1

 

They should be at least 2 tiles wide and paved to be protected

 

 

+1 with the requirements above

[Ostentatio 1,970]

Yeah, it would be nice if two tile wide caverns, with reinforcements, were just rolled into existing highway rules. Obviously a bit of an exception to the "two tile wide" rule would need to be made to account for the lack of entrances that wide, but that's doable.

[Retrograde 12,013]

Isn't this is what the heritage system covers?

[Cecci 1,609]

He is trying to reduce GM work.

[Ostentatio 1,970]

Heritage sites need to be proposed manually and there's no easy way to know whether or not your project would be accepted as one beforehand.

 

Is there even a single heritage site on Xanadu?

[Hordern 2,177]

As a GM I would like to chip in by saying that I think the number of tickets we'd receive about such things would probably be pretty similar. However, we'd certainly end up with a higher % of antagonistic activities to monitor with this proposed system and they are always the most time consuming and frustrating to deal with.

[Ayes 3,715]

On the face of it your suggestion seems reasonable Odynn but the difference I see from highways right away is that these cave canals are underground where no players can see them from the surface as they do highways. This means that as they turn to the side and go in other directions it will be all the more difficult for the non-boaters to have any idea where they are even if marked on community server maps.

 

So now a player wants to place a deed above ground and they will somehow need to determine before hand if there are and cave canals below the surface that they might disturb? Will this protection block deed placement then? Will the deed owner be prevented from accidentally mining into them? I know above ground Heritage Sites have some sort of border (5-10 tiles?) that surrounds them and a popup will appear stating that one has entered them and they should not be altered, so I am not too sure either if this could be noted for cave canals underground.

 

The suggestion on the surface seems fine but when unseen under the surface it changes the depth to which it can be taken. Yet I agree that with so much work put into them it would be nice to receive some type of highway like protection, although I see it as being problematical for the brief reasons stated.

 

=Ayes=

[Rathgar 959]

-1  I dont like protected stuff outside deeds, people with too much time end up making huge self serving projects outside of their territory under the pretense of community work.  I think even highways should be designated as heritage by GMs and the rest should all be fair game.

[zorako 178]

After refurbishing the 7 year old Cave Canal on Independence , we asked for it to become a Heritage Site. Two weeks later , on 31 August 2016 it was approved.

 

That seemed to work good , I see no need for a change.

 

[Jaz 2,663]

+1. @Retrograde heritage status is way harder to achieve, I've filed successful and rejected ones too. Latter case I had to keep deeds on both ends to secure a 1km long public tunnel...

[Odynn 2,248]

well, heritage status do exactly the same thing as highway... except they are not always granted and give no protection at all.

 

Even worse, having deeds on a project, even if we know the restrictions applied (no KoS) seems to be detrimental to them... which is not the case for highways at all.

 

So either have both on the same rules or not at all. Anyone can create a highway, call it a highway, and get it magically GM protected, no need for a review by the GM team. Cave Canals / Surface canals / Channels are harder to make be it for the mining / surface mining / dredging involved. They are only a few arounds, often marked on the public maps and a necessity for anyone living inland but they have absolutely no protection and anyone can drop dirt in them, collapse and strongwall them and that is totally free game according to the rules.

 

Law and spirit of the law : highway rules should apply to any infrastructures improving traveling.

[Hordern 2,177]

17 hours ago, Odynn said:

well, heritage status do exactly the same thing as highway... except they are not always granted and give no protection at all.

I fail to see what protection a highway is given that a heritage site isn't...

 

It's also worth noting that the highway rules stipulate the road must start and end at deeds. Some heritage sites (particularly canals/tunnels) wouldn't fit these rules as they stand, and no way are we opening up the highway rules again to allow ANY wide road to count  Points of interest would be too subjective and that's why the GM's make that call, hence the current heritage system.

[DreDBanGeR 61]

On 16-9-2016 at 3:55 PM, Ostentatio said:

Heritage sites need to be proposed manually and there's no easy way to know whether or not your project would be accepted as one beforehand.

 

Is there even a single heritage site on Xanadu?

yes  the Ageless tunel  !

also .. +1 to the original idea

Edited September 23, 2016 by DreDBanGeR

[Odynn 2,248]

17 hours ago, Hordern said:

It's also worth noting that the highway rules stipulate the road must start and end at deeds. Some heritage sites (particularly canals/tunnels) wouldn't fit these rules as they stand

 

how about it must connect too bodies of water ? kinda the purpose of canals, right ?

 

17 hours ago, Hordern said:

no way are we opening up the highway rules again to allow ANY wide road to coun

 

Sorry, but we already do have to ask for a GM review everytime we need to modify a silly two tiles road, which means all of them do count already.

 

17 hours ago, Hordern said:

I fail to see what protection a highway is given that a heritage site isn't...

 

You miss the point in the argument there : highways are protect by default as long as they follow a definite set of rules (which apply to most if not all of them). Heritage sites need to be reviewed by a team who decide or not if they want to grant it the same level of protection highways have. And yes, the level of protection is trivial anyway, which kinda prove my point.

 

On 21/09/2016 at 5:12 AM, Hordern said:

However, we'd certainly end up with a higher % of antagonistic activities to monitor with this proposed system and they are always the most time consuming and frustrating to deal with.

 

Well, i stopped counting the highways around... canals on the others hand can be counted on your fingers (add toes on larger servers), how the ratio is so awful ?

 

17 hours ago, Hordern said:

why the GM's make that call, hence the current heritage system.

 

which takes way longer to review than the time spent on canal making, for no guaranteed results, which is as counter productive as we have a current smooth highway processing (process often abused by the way).