[GLA] N&A Canal
Moderator: Staff
[GLA] N&A Canal
Name & Title: Orion II, Grand Duke
E-Mail/Contact: Discord
Nation: Lac Glacei
Request:
Notes: I think enough time has elapsed into this project that a formal claim can now be made. As surmised by the wiki article, Lac Glacei and Meckelnburgh have restored the Nurthaven and Antruusbuurg Canal along the southern boundary of Jaaland, allowing ships to bypass the Straits of Artsessdun into the Clear Sea.
E-Mail/Contact: Discord
Nation: Lac Glacei
Request:
Notes: I think enough time has elapsed into this project that a formal claim can now be made. As surmised by the wiki article, Lac Glacei and Meckelnburgh have restored the Nurthaven and Antruusbuurg Canal along the southern boundary of Jaaland, allowing ships to bypass the Straits of Artsessdun into the Clear Sea.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [GLA] N&A Canal
I can't quite figure out which striped marking you're using for this, but if it's a joint claim for Lac Glacei and Meckelnburgh, it should use both nations' colours
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4328
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: [GLA] N&A Canal
This is a physical map change, so can't be voted on by the Council. Please open a new proposal under "Regulations Discussion" for this, or submit a claim that only changes the ownership of land.
EDIT by Craitman: Unstamping...
EDIT by Craitman: Unstamping...
Re Canal
As per Joe's instructions, I am requesting the addition of the N&A canal.
The canal was previously on the map for many, many years, and therefore has a precedent. Also, it's a temporary structure. Should the nation(s) forfeit the land it reverts to its previous status (i.e. the canal silts in from disuse).
The canal was previously on the map for many, many years, and therefore has a precedent. Also, it's a temporary structure. Should the nation(s) forfeit the land it reverts to its previous status (i.e. the canal silts in from disuse).
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Re Canal
According to this diagram, the canal isn't wide enough to cover a pixel's width of land on the claimsmap, so I don't agree that there is any requirement to colour it separately.
By all means, please resubmit the claim regarding the land you want around the canal - I personally think Joe was a bit trigger-happy on the stamp with that one, doing so before you had a chance to respond to my question misinterpreting what the colours meant - but I see no reason to make exception for the canal itself...
By all means, please resubmit the claim regarding the land you want around the canal - I personally think Joe was a bit trigger-happy on the stamp with that one, doing so before you had a chance to respond to my question misinterpreting what the colours meant - but I see no reason to make exception for the canal itself...
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4328
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: Re Canal
The canal was about three pixels wide in that claim?
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Re Canal
Here's a closer version, so it's just one pixel wide. I initially thought the blue was meant to indicate protectorate/shared striping or something, combined with Lac Glacei's khaki colour:
Re: Re Canal
Correct. The canal isn't wide enough to cover a whole pixel (except in certain places, like Nurth Lake). But, like with many things Micran, it's not an exact science we're dealing with here. The canal has a buffer of one pixel on either side (roughly) owned by Lac Glacei.
And while management of the canal is shared with Meckelnburgh, land ownership is not, so it isn't shaded two colors.
And while management of the canal is shared with Meckelnburgh, land ownership is not, so it isn't shaded two colors.
Re: [GLA] N&A Canal
It is not a physical map update, Joe. It's a claim for the canal zone. It is perfectly possible to have decorum and act in good faith and not deny without any authority to do so. Talk to the claimant if you have concerns. I think an apology should be in order.
Now, the claim is easy and straight forward to determine. I don't think it's necessary to include the actual canal – though there has been precedences in other map versions, so it is not uncalled for for Orion to include it in his claim. Both options should be considered by the Council.
Think of it as two questions, first question whether to accept the claim or not, secondly, whether to include the marking or not. The Council has not denied claims before for displaying the wrong markings, it's simply corrected them before the map update.
Now, the claim is easy and straight forward to determine. I don't think it's necessary to include the actual canal – though there has been precedences in other map versions, so it is not uncalled for for Orion to include it in his claim. Both options should be considered by the Council.
Think of it as two questions, first question whether to accept the claim or not, secondly, whether to include the marking or not. The Council has not denied claims before for displaying the wrong markings, it's simply corrected them before the map update.
Re: Re Canal
He shouldn't have to resubmit. The claim was denied without authority to do so. The Council should act in good faith and consider the claim on its merits. The claim was submitted in good faith, so the Council should act in good faith. Orion has done nothing wrong, he should not resubmit. You should consider the claim on its own merits.Craitman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:26 pmAccording to this diagram, the canal isn't wide enough to cover a pixel's width of land on the claimsmap, so I don't agree that there is any requirement to colour it separately.
By all means, please resubmit the claim regarding the land you want around the canal - I personally think Joe was a bit trigger-happy on the stamp with that one, doing so before you had a chance to respond to my question misinterpreting what the colours meant - but I see no reason to make exception for the canal itself...
Be nice.
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: Re Canal
True, but the closest precedent we have nowadays is islands that are smaller than a pixel, such as those near the compass on the claimsmap. We can permit such islands to "exist" without any requirement of showing them larger than they are, so we can permit canals (or any kind of narrow waterways; many nations have their own maps showing rivers that aren't blue on the claimsmap) without any need to colour them blue.
And understood. I misinterpreted the blue on the claim image as being a different shading but that's clearly not the case now of course
Have I not been?
I've merged the two topics together as it seems futile having the same conversation over two boards and moved it all back into being a current claim thread. As long as we can get a universal understanding of how the final, added claim would look, I'll move it to the Council
-
- Administrator General
- Posts: 4328
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 10:58 pm
- Location: Republic of Mercury
Re: [GLA] N&A Canal
The claim, as drawn, removes 24 pixels of land from the map. It does violate the Charter and therefore as a Council member, I do have the authority to veto it. Now that clarification has been provided, I'm happy to remove the veto, but we can only vote on the facts as presented to us. Had this been submitted as a physical map update, I'd actually have been in favour, but that can still be done after the claim is approved in order to allow the markings to be shown too.Ric wrote: ↑Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:52 amIt is not a physical map update, Joe. It's a claim for the canal zone. It is perfectly possible to have decorum and act in good faith and not deny without any authority to do so. Talk to the claimant if you have concerns. I think an apology should be in order.
Now, the claim is easy and straight forward to determine. I don't think it's necessary to include the actual canal – though there has been precedences in other map versions, so it is not uncalled for for Orion to include it in his claim. Both options should be considered by the Council.
Think of it as two questions, first question whether to accept the claim or not, secondly, whether to include the marking or not. The Council has not denied claims before for displaying the wrong markings, it's simply corrected them before the map update.
Re: [GLA] N&A Canal
The reality is that if we did away with the black borders you could shrink this claim even more to an exact three pixels. But this is the system we use, so I made the best possible approximation.
So what needs to happen to make this claim move forward?
So what needs to happen to make this claim move forward?
-
- FMS Staff
- Posts: 21546
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Cherry Trees, Craitland
- Contact:
Re: [GLA] N&A Canal
The system we use also puts a black border between land and water, so it still wouldn't be right to have blue touching khaki. Just making it like any other claim, so colouring the land with no minor waterways marked, is all I'm asking for
Re: [GLA] N&A Canal
OK, so can we just move the claim forward sans the coloring for the canal?