Highway Rule

[Jerrywalker 16]

I know that highways very usefull for most of community but highway rule seems slightly offensive for me.

In 2011 when i started playing i've widen the road from my house to token till 3 tiles wide. After that Lyandar told me that it will be good to connect road from our deed Wolf's Den to nearest deeds (Carisann and Kingsport) so i've maid it 2 tiles wide till that deeds.

Now i'm making cave canal from nightmare lake to Sloppy Hollow and due to rock height was needed to remove small part of that 3 tiles wide road to make exit. Carts and horses still can pass deed to those towns (i never blocked access to deed) just not in straight line. But doing that i break the highway rule and now need to remove pens to reroute highway and make it 3 tiles wide.

So my only fault is that i've made that road too wide and didn't blocked all access to deed in beginning. It's the cause for my 3-4 days long work now. Now i MUST give wide road thru my deed for players only because it was there before. (when deed was placed it was barren place without any roads) Seems not very right to me.

[Kraljtatov 34]

I agree that the highway rule is too black and white for this reason. Whether on-deed or not, one should be able to reroute a highway as long as access isn't blocked. An inconvenience doesn't count as a blockage, at least according to the dictionary.

[kgorski 166]

i remember how looks that terrein before Jerrywalker build 3tile roand on his deed, other orads in that area are 1-tile wide, so i don;t understant why people comlain Jerry.

and if law is against people it need to be changed.

[Seara 686]

I'd agree on the reroute, as long as it's done first before taking up the old one, AND you get advanced approval.

It's important to note that everyone should talk to a GM first when planning to modify any highway. That can get you more flexibility, and permission to do your work (or at least review acceptable alternatives). The rule has to be blank and white (when not getting approval) otherwise folks would just work around it.

I'd also suggest (terrain allowing) not having highways inside your deed. It's too limiting, both with modification, and the ban on issuing KoS. Better to route them to the side of your area when possible.

[Oracle 318]

Read the rules.

Highways.

A/ It is illegal to block, terraform, alter or destroy any highways.( Application to conduct any of these activities may be sent to GM for approval)

[Kraljtatov 34]

Read the rules.

Highways.

A/ It is illegal to block, terraform, alter or destroy any highways.( Application to conduct any of these activities may be sent to GM for approval)

Doesn't mean the application will be approved, even if you built the highway. Changing it so players can modify highways without restriction will save everyone work. By far I have seen more complaints about highways being built than destroyed, so this would save GMs some work, and players can also build highways around deeds; you can't build a deed around a highway (at least no one wants to bother.)

At least changing the rule so that highways can be rerouted, but in order to be destroyed a GMs approval is required would be acceptable.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Kraljtatov

[Protunia 735]

If the road was made larger going through the deed long after the land was deeded how is that road considered a highway?

I could see it if someone deeded the land over top a highway, but I cannot see how a road that was made on someones deed should be considered a highway after the fact.

It is merely part of the players deed and was placed long after the land was deeded therefore the mayor should have all rights to change those tiles regardless if they connect to a highway.

In other words many players right now have slabs covering more than 2 tiles wide all over their deed how does this deed make any difference??

Because he connected to a highway now his deed is no longer allowed to terraform??? makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

If you stay on this path you are asking for much more trouble than its worth in the long run when no one can touch their own deed because they made a road on the deed a little bigger for their own travelling. This could lead to anyone's deed anywhere being declared untouchable by the mayor because someone else built a road to their deed.

What really gets me most is I watched as a player destroyed a road I built similar to this over and over again and nothing was done about it. Now we are going to tell mayors you had better not build a 2 lane road on your own deed or else one day your own tiles could be governed by a GM because it could be considered a highway if someone builds a road to it in the future?

Give Me a BREAK!

Edited July 28, 2012 by Protunia

[Aetherwalker 1,863]

Pretty sure these rules are in place to stop people breaking infrastructure. Seeing as in this case infrastructure was broken and that made travel difficult, then the person who broke the infrastructure is in the wrong.

[ReaverKane 363]

1- Higways can be 2 tiles wide only, if both are cobblestone.

2- I don't think the Highway rule applies if the only place it applies is your deed, i mean, if its a 2 tile wide street in your deed, its not a highway, if its a extension of that street that only leads to and fro your deed, i don't think highway rules need apply. If they do its nonsensical.

Pretty sure these rules are in place to stop people breaking infrastructure. Seeing as in this case infrastructure was broken and that made travel difficult, then the person who broke the infrastructure is in the wrong.

Its a access to his deed, not a infrastructure. Highway rules are there because people like to destroy roads whenever they feel like it. I made a public road to a clay pit where before the only way there was by boat. I made it so others could use it, since i preferred using a boat still.. None the less, people have destroyed pavement and dug on that road several times in the past.

This kind of rule is there because Highways that allow faster and less confusing travel around a map are useful, and improve the game's enjoyability for new players and old alike. Thus these true highways are, and should be protected, but we can't start falling into the ridicule of calling any 2 tile wide road a Highway. Specially if it leads nowhere, or if you're the owner of the place it leads to.

[Aetherwalker 1,863]

If it were just to his deed, I doubt Ruger would have posted about it on the forums annoyed that he couldn't travel because the highway was torn up.

[Oracle 318]

Wonder how many threads would appear in anger over road demolitions if we were to remove the highway rule ?

Wonder how many people are capable of defining a highway rule that will satisfy everyone ?

We dont like rules, so it would be fantastic if everyone agrees we should remove this rule.

[Protunia 735]

Wonder how many threads would appear in anger over road demolitions if we were to remove the highway rule ?

Wonder how many people are capable of defining a highway rule that will satisfy everyone ?

We dont like rules, so it would be fantastic if everyone agrees we should remove this rule.

So in other words do not let any roads connect to any part of your deed and for sure do not build 2 lanes roads on your deed to the perimeter or one day you could be a highway....lol!!

I see the rule and see why its there, but in some situations i can also see why a mayor of a deed would be angry as well when told you made the roads but now they are not yours.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Protunia

[Melketh 92]

Keep the rule as it is, if you don't like it, reroute the road first, then contact the GMs and apply for permission to remove the existing highway, with proof there is an alternative route in place.

[Brash_Endeavors 4,735]

So in other words do not let any roads connect to any part of your deed and for sure do not build 2 lanes roads on your deed to the perimeter or one day you could be a highway....lol!!

I see the rule and see why its there, but in some situations i can also see why a mayor of a deed would be angry as well when told you made the roads but now they are not yours.

There are actually very similar type issues in common law, where simply allowing (let alone encouraging) traffic through a property can after a period of time mean the landowner has waived the right to stop or hinder that traffic. So while I understand very much the confusion and anger over the rule, this is not exactly a foreign concept that someone just made up out of thin air. I assume also that when you contact GMs to get permission to remove or reroute a highway, they look at issues such as: is it on your actual deed? are there alternate routes provided? How many people are actually affected by closing the road? None of those guarantee you will get permission, but I am sure it carries a lot of weight in tilting the decsion your way.

But yes, building a road then discovering later you have lost the right to also later remove that road, even on your own private property, is not just a Wurm GM concept, there are long traditional common law roots to this. Hopefully the original poster will be able to find a solution to this, and yes it very much SHOULD be a warning to deed owners, that building a road through your deed might commit you to keeping that road open in the future.

--

Just as a side note, I was trying to recall the term for this in Google (never did find it) but found an interesting way different communities view access to private property - in New Hampshire, it is apparently considered a public right to cross your land at will, especially for hunters who are pretty much allowed to shoot anywhere they want in hunting season (which may be year round for all I know), and the state government even warns people that posting "no trespassing" or "no hunting" signs might be able to prevent this but also are likely to incur a lot of community wrath and even grieving and retaliation, so they actively try to dissuade property users from trying to keep strangers with guns off their personal property. Some exceptions are allowed if you show allowing this access would be unreasonable (cattle owners worried their livestock will be shot). My sweetheart grew up in a community where kids were taught at an early age to wear orange outdoors and if a hunter accidentally shot someone, even on the victim's own land, people would tsk about how sad the victim was not taught to use common sense in increasing their visibility, and a lot of sympathy for the hunter who had every right to be shooting on this other person's land. Most places I have lived have had the opposite view -- you "shouldn't" go on someone else's land without permission, but especially if they explicitly tell you to "get off my lawn," you are required by trespassing laws to obey their demand. An exception in my home state of oregon, is that beach front owners are required to allow free public use of the actual beach itself (you are not required to provide access but you also cannot block access, so someone in theory can walk the entire length of the state waterfront and not be blocked at any point regardless of who "owns" the land).

So different parts of the world often have different views about the publics right to access and use private land, and about the right to continue using established traffic routes that have been used over a period of time.

If you don't plan to allow that road forever and ever ane ever, its best never to allow it to begin with, let alone build it yourself. I am not agreeing with that, just stating it as a warning to deed owners in general.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Brash_Endeavors

[Kadore 926]

Wonder how many threads would appear in anger over road demolitions if we were to remove the highway rule ?

Wonder how many people are capable of defining a highway rule that will satisfy everyone ?

We dont like rules, so it would be fantastic if everyone agrees we should remove this rule.

Plenty have offered suggestions to desiginate highways, Tich had the idea for highway markers, others have suggested specific cobble tile types to desiginate highways.

We buy land from Rolf, but can only own what is not highway, before the highway was built how did people get around, if the highway is gone why can they not build another, it seems a matter of who's inconvienced, a deed owner or the person wanting to travel in a direction.

I understand blocking canals can be problematic, but the rules that protect us are hadly better that what we're being protected from at times, Enclosures, Boat Salvage etc.

I dont find it impossible to travel areas that have no road, I have a button called climb in the lower right hand of my screen.

[Alyeska 2,621]

If his deed is the terminus of a highway he can alter/block/remove it as he pleases. When his deed is part of a highway, he needs to consult a gm and work out a solution. If you offer a viable replacement route the GMs won't mind alteration of the highway at all. Threads like these are unnecessary when people start actually following the steps given in the rules.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Alyeska

[Klaa 4,872]

Anarchy baby!

[Kraljtatov 34]

That's my point Alyeska. Why do we have to report any change in a highway to a GM? It was much easier to deal with the once in a blue moon highway grieving than to have to REQUEST the alteration of vacant land, which creates more work for everyone. All I'm asking for though is that deed owners has the right to move highways off their deed at whim, that's it.

[Aetherwalker 1,863]

The reason you believe it to be "once in a blue moon" highway griefing is BECAUSE it's illegal now, take away the illegality and there will be literally 10% as many highways as there are now, because people will tear them up for olive trees or whatnot.

[Kraljtatov 34]

Maybe that would be a good thing then. IMHO there should be ONE central highway system, governed by the GMs.

[Aetherwalker 1,863]

Why make more work for the already super busy GMs? Half of the appeal of Wurm to most people is that everything is player made, soon you'll be saying you want no canals or cave canals unless GMs make them.

[Ruger 610]

Lets look at a few things here. First lets look at the fact that the highway from my understanding was there BEFORE you took over wolfs den. From my understanding you are not the first owner. Second the highway that ran THROUGH your deed was a major highway that connected players to the road network to get to the east coast.

Also lets look at what you did.

You completely destroyed the highway. No longer is a player able to go down to the lake and get to the highway that once connected them to the road network to the east and northeast without first traveling on a non-highway road that reminds me of my first day in wurm when I walked through the starting area on Freedom. Fenced in one tile road through housing area, etc.

Things would of been different had you:

1. Properly planned a canal

2. Made an alternate highway for people to travel on prior to destroying the old one.

3. Even given people detour signs letting them know "hey new route this way >"

You did none of that. Instead you destroyed a highway like everything was okay.

Edit: For the people looking at the picture, what your seeing is me attempting to get down to the lake to go get clay like a normal day. The road I'm standing on used to connect to the road down there by the lake.

Another Edit: I wish I had some kind of paint program on this mac and I probably do but since Im a mac-noob I have no idea if I do or not. But its clear to see that the highway was clearly there. Its even marked on the map.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Ruger

[JTShadow 4]

I would make a slight change to the highway rule if I could. First, I would want tiles used for highways to look different from the rest of the tiles, therefore giving highways a distinct look, thus people would know immediately if it was or was not a highway. Secondly with that being determined beyond a doubt in the future anyone who lays down this "highway" tile would be agreeing to the terms and conditions of the highway rule, thus if they just wanted a path they could use another type of tiling, but if they wanted to provide a highway they would have that option.

[Ruger 610]

And for the record. I have modified two highways since I have begun playing. What did I do? Re-route them off my deed. BUT I did not destroy the old tile till the new tiles were laid down. Why? Because I read the rules...

[JudusX 199]

to be honest if i pay my monthly upkeep to own my land then i should be able to do what i want with it. If those tiles are not considered your property anymore than you shouldnt be responsible to pay the upkeep for those tiles. From what i gather connecting a highway to someones deed should be considered griefing since the action will trap the deed owner into an unwilling situation that could be later brought back on him/her as an illegal action if they wanted to use those tiles for something else.

highways are a good thing, just not on deed.