Topic: Canalising rivers

[Ves]

If I want to use a specific players infrastructure in a city, I could call the city council and tell them I want to use the roads. After a set amount of players have asked, and/or the city itself wants the roads, this could trigger the question to overtake. The more players asking, the higher the penalty will be for the player to decline. After a year (or other set/calculated time) the question could be made again.

This could also go the other way, lots of people constantly making calls for open infrastructure making it very expensive for the declining player. This could be balanced with a cost of making such calls.

But maybe this is overkill? :-)

[AP]

What if the city could add the (aforementioned) "public right of way" to player-owned road tiles in cities to prevent that. Not all the tiles, just " odd ones" necessary to connect other public highways, to act as bridging tiles for access.

So the player could still upgrade or remove the roads s/he owned, but couldn't encircle a city and preclude other players or citycars.

[jamespetts]

If I want to use a specific players infrastructure in a city, I could call the city council and tell them I want to use the roads. After a set amount of players have asked, and/or the city itself wants the roads, this could trigger the question to overtake. The more players asking, the higher the penalty will be for the player to decline. After a year (or other set/calculated time) the question could be made again.

This could also go the other way, lots of people constantly making calls for open infrastructure making it very expensive for the declining player. This could be balanced with a cost of making such calls.

But maybe this is overkill? :-)

This does not seem to relate to how these things actually work in reality.

[Ves]

I know, it would just be one way to let actual humans (the players) take actions, when dilemmas and infrastructure-conflicts occur. Instead of letting the AI solve the conflicts alone.

[jamespetts]

In reality, roads in towns are almost invariably (1) open to the public at large; and (2) maintained at the expense of the public at large. It seems to me to be worthwhile to replicate this position in Simutrans.

[Sarlock]

There is a similar problem with bridges in reverse: I cannot put a canal underneath a single tile bridge that is player-owned.  If the bridge is higher, 2 tiles or more, I can still delete/upgrade the river in to a canal, but not if it's just one tile high.

An example of this is at @5895,1583.  I had to put the canal around the bridge and through city owned roads in order to connect it through.

At @5909,1530 I was able to replace the river as the bridge as 2 tiles high.

[isidoro]

I have not checked, but isn't is possible to "dig" with artificial slope tools under the bridge and, then build the canal?

[Sarlock]

It might be possible except that it's a river tile already and in order to lower the ground you'd have to bulldoze the river which the game will not allow you to do.

[ӔO]

For deleting things under the bridge, pave a way over and then delete it all using the way removal tool.
Using the remove/destroy tool under the bridge does not work, because it thinks you are trying to delete the pillar.

[jamespetts]

Isidoro, before I forget - one question if I may about your interesting suggestion for automatic detour detection: what would you suggest be done when the deleted tile is an intersection?

[isidoro]

The easy way is to forbid it (it's what I would do, since it seems a marginal case).

I wonder if the algorithm can be general, it seems so to me: in an intersection, three or four tiles get unconnected.  It will only be allowed if the first tile respect the general rule with respect to the second, the second tile with the third, and so on.

Problem apart are dead ends...
 

[jamespetts]

The easy way is to forbid it (it's what I would do, since it seems a marginal case).

I wonder if the algorithm can be general, it seems so to me: in an intersection, three or four tiles get unconnected.  It will only be allowed if the first tile respect the general rule with respect to the second, the second tile with the third, and so on.

This seems to be the better way of doing it.

Problem apart are dead ends...

Hmm, yes, that is more of a difficulty. Perhaps we could check to see whether they are in the vicinity of a building (attraction, industry or city building)? If not, they are not access roads to such a building, and there is no value in them being a public highway, so deletion might always be allowed.

[isidoro]

Seems sensible to me.

[jamespetts]

I have now implemented this feature as suggested on the way-improvements branch, albeit that I still need to add a simuconf.tab parameter to customise the maximum diversion length. Thank you to all for assistance in this project.

[johnjake]

Rivers in the UK can have Public Rights of Navigation - the same as a Public Right of Way on a road - where these have become established, either over time or by law (esp. Scotland).

In fact, this BBC Article suggests every english river in theory does still have a public right of navigation:  That may be an overstatement (hence strikethrough), as the article goes on to say, but if there's been continuous use, the right will still be there. This wikipedia article says 2% of English/Welsh rivers have such rights, presumably because most "rivers" here aren't good for anything bigger than a best canoe. Those that are, will have been used for a very long time.

Canals were mostly privately built. I'm unsure if Canal Acts required canal companies to let any barge use their canal if it wanted to for a fee (anyone know?) in a common-carrier type fashion, or if they were explicitly private and could turn away anyone they didnt like. I know railways couldn't refuse to convey most freight on their trains - but that's very different from effectively "public running rights" (no such thing).

A lot of the private canals were bought up by early railway companies to effectively remove political opposition to building the railway. In some cases the canals had tracks laid along them... (e.g. Portsea Island)

Your post was good and informative for me but i have some question that i can't leave without answer i know this is old post so any one know my answer tell me....?
if you are still available reply me....
In the history you can visit that "In 1904, the United States bought Canal Zone because it wanted to expand its shipping and naval power between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It paid $10 million to Panama and $40 million to France. ... The agreement allowed the United States to intervene anytime that its use of the canal was threatened."
how you can say that Canals were mostly privately built....?
I agree that a lot of the private canals were bought up by early railway companies but why they need to buy it.....?

[Vladki]

In the history you can visit that "In 1904, the United States bought Canal Zone because it wanted to expand its shipping and naval power between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It paid $10 million to Panama and $40 million to France. ... The agreement allowed the United States to intervene anytime that its use of the canal was threatened."
how you can say that Canals were mostly privately built....?

Well I think Panama and Suez canals are quite exceptional. I think the canals in mind were those built inside one country - connecting rivers not oceans. Also most of them were built for much smaller ships than Panama and Suez. And those were (at least in UK) built privately.

I agree that a lot of the private canals were bought up by early railway companies but why they need to buy it.....?

Maybe just to get rid of mighty political opponents, who expected to lose the transport business and so tried to block railway construction in parliament... When they bought the canal, no one objected any more, and after the railway was built, the canal could have been closed.