Rereading I think I misunderstood the question and too tired to confirm now.

I'll check again in the morning if it's not answered

Edit

So my understanding is that you own the parcel your land is built on, and the surface it contains.

But (and I could be wrong here) if your surface moves through two z-axis parcels you would then own them both whilst only owning the one parcel on the x and y axis.

In other words you bought the surface and so for your parcel it doesn't matter how many z axis it goes through.

For the air and subterrain parcels this is a mute point. You would own the whole square

From: DJ 14:

Foundations
In those rare instances where the land isn’t immediately suitable for construction, it’s sometimes possible to work around it. For example, if the land is uneven, it can be flattened by laying down a foundation. Building a foundation acts as a sort of terraforming, raising up the land where necessary to create a nice, flat space for construction.

In areas with shallow water such as bogs, beaches, etc. stilts can be used in order to raise the base of the building up out of the water.

It’s even possible to mount large platforms to the side of massive trees in order build light structures on top of the platforms. That’s right – tree houses!

The answer is no. A settlement can't be on a bad elevation level.

My understanding of this is : you can directly claim the parcel on the ground level (without need to buy the one on the sea level) because the parcel on the ground level is physicaly reachable.

The corollary is : you can't claim for a parcel above another if you didn't build something on the "downstairs" parcel, or if there isn't any other way to reach the "upstairs" parcel.

In your described scenario, the ground parcel is physically reachable via the ground way (thourgh the climb line; a Talweg or whatever line going from the sea level to the altitude of 64 meters), so there is no need to build anything, and the consequence is that there is no need to buy the "downstairs" parcel.

In fact, you can't even buy the "downstairs" parcel because it isn't physically reachable at +32 meters (unless digging for 32 meters down) !

One additional clarification about the references : a parcel is not going upward from +0 [meters] to +64 [m], instead it is going upward from +0 [m] to +32 [m], and downward from +0 [m] to -32 [m].

The basic question still stands. Suppose you have a parcel that is on a slope that transitions from +31m to +33m. Will it cost you the price of 2 parcels to be able to use the surface are of the whole parcel?

The two parcels in question are at elevations -32m to +32m, and +32m to +96m, just to be sure we are using the same figures. In principle, I don't care what the absolute reference lines are -- the lines that define the tops and bottoms of parcels. What matters is that there will be some land that transitions in elevation across parcel vertical boundaries, and vertical transitions will not always align exactly with parcel horizontal boundaries, unless SBS institutes artificial grading that forces parcels to be entirely at one elevation or another. I say "artificial" because it is a specially-coded exception to what a real-number computation of landform elevation would deliver as a result.

If the question above is not specific enough, what happens when there is not enough of a parcel owned above surface level to build a complete structure? For example, a flat parcel at +31m elevation would legally enable structures only 1m high, which is somewhat low even for Kypiqs.

I thought I saw previously that when you claim a parcel you automatically get the land below it and the air above? Like there was no potential for someone to build on a land area and someone else to build in a "cave" underneath. That might be old data though.

Posted By Poldano at 9:22 PM - Sat May 11 2019

The basic question still stands. Suppose you have a parcel that is on a slope that transitions from +31m to +33m. Will it cost you the price of 2 parcels to be able to use the surface are of the whole parcel?

The two parcels in question are at elevations -32m to +32m, and +32m to +96m, just to be sure we are using the same figures. In principle, I don't care what the absolute reference lines are -- the lines that define the tops and bottoms of parcels. What matters is that there will be some land that transitions in elevation across parcel vertical boundaries, and vertical transitions will not always align exactly with parcel horizontal boundaries, unless SBS institutes artificial grading that forces parcels to be entirely at one elevation or another. I say "artificial" because it is a specially-coded exception to what a real-number computation of landform elevation would deliver as a result.

If the question above is not specific enough, what happens when there is not enough of a parcel owned above surface level to build a complete structure? For example, a flat parcel at +31m elevation would legally enable structures only 1m high, which is somewhat low even for Kypiqs.

Why do you assume that you'd only be able to build structures 1m high? You don't buy parcels in the air. The only time you buy parcels in vertical of another one is if there is something solid already there.

I believe that if buildings go over the parcel boundary, then you would need to purchase the 'airspace' to continue building?

Also, great graphics! I think if SBS need a new graphic engineer you are well suited - can you help them with their maps? :)

Posted By Shamstone at 02:54 AM - Sun May 12 2019

I believe that if buildings go over the parcel boundary, then you would need to purchase the 'airspace' to continue building?

Also, great graphics! I think if SBS need a new graphic engineer you are well suited - can you help them with their maps? :)

You don't buy parcels in the air.

Thank you all for your time, entertaining my theories!

Flattening, while important, is not the issue I'm struggling with. For all intents and purposes the ground might just as well be entirely flat for the entire settlement.

Eolwyn, I do understand that you do not need to buy the parcel beneath the one you are building on. The problem occurs when your building intersects two parcels. Or really, when building is not possible without intersecting two parcels.

I stand corrected on sea level though, the sea should be in the middle of a parcel. To illustrate the issue further and redeem myself of getting sea level wrong, I've honed my paint skills to demigod levels. Please take a look at the yellow buildings:

The building near the water has no issue. However, the two buildings on the right intersect two parcels. It is not unthinkable that an entire settlement is, like the right part of the image and like Poldano illustrated, at +30 meters.

Doesn't matter Gaoman. People do not buy parcels in the air. When you buy parcels, you are buying solid matter (to anyone who feels like replying to this comment in a pedantic manner: yes, these are electronic, but we're talking about the game so go with it). So as long as the parcel you buy has some air in it, you don't need to buy the one above it. I shouldn't have to say why people don't buy parcels in the air... but in case people can't figure it out for themselves: how are you going to build structures floating in the air? How would you get to them? That's right, you don't. So people don't buy parcels in the air. All that matters is that the parcel you own is partially in the air so that you can build something on the ground. If your parcel has no air, then you are underground and you will need to buy a parcel above it in order to build a building on the ground.

So what you are saying is you do not need to own the parcel above it to build.

So when I build a theoretical 200-meter high tower, I only need to own the ground parcel.

I hope this is true, can you link me a video or some blog where I can confirm this?

Posted By Protey at 10:18 PM - Sun May 12 2019

Doesn't matter Gaoman. People do not buy parcels in the air. When you buy parcels, you are buying solid matter (to anyone who feels like replying to this comment in a pedantic manner: yes, these are electronic, but we're talking about the game so go with it). So as long as the parcel you buy has some air in it, you don't need to buy the one above it. I shouldn't have to say why people don't buy parcels in the air... but in case people can't figure it out for themselves: how are you going to build structures floating in the air? How would you get to them? That's right, you don't. So people don't buy parcels in the air. All that matters is that the parcel you own is partially in the air so that you can build something on the ground. If your parcel has no air, then you are underground and you will need to buy a parcel above it in order to build a building on the ground.

I dont believe you are right on this.... the 'air' above is relevant if you are buying tiles that sit under the ground level, and higher up especially for buildings that may sit higher up on cliffs and in trees.

I recall reading a developer post that contradicts what Protey said. It specifically mentioned the need to purchase air rights if a building were to exceed 32m in height. The same post did not mention the absolute basis of parcel vertical boundaries. The belief that these two assertions were true led me to believe that parcel boundaries were relative to landforms on the parcel, which in turn led me to advise others that the center of the parcel was the reference point for the vertical midplane.

I'm treating this as a development work in process, so I am not expecting that all the explanations have been given or need to be given in the near future. There are obvious solutions to the problems that any kind of boundary reference will entail. My self-appointed role here is to identify the problems I perceive as I become aware of them, and point them out publicly if I cannot determine that someone else has already done so.

The problem with limited air rights to structures is mirrored by one of limited underground rights. An owner of a parcel with a boundary at ground level or insufficiently below it evidently does not possess rights to create cellars or tunnels underneath the parcel. Since hidden cellars are probably one of the best spots for safekeeping valuables, this will be a major nuisance to any player who finds out that he cannot legally create one. Etc., etc.

From what I understood the center of a parcel is always at ground level (see Snipehunters past post about this).

This would mean that the parcels won't follow an uniform grid from the sea level and up, but have a more stair-like grid. Or in other words, a parcels neighboring parcels may only really align horizontally, while their vertical position might differ depending on each parcels average elevation.

If this is the case a surface parcel will always have 32m air above it.

Posted By Shamstone at 2:41 PM - Sun May 12 2019

I dont believe you are right on this.... the 'air' above is relevant if you are buying tiles that sit under the ground level, and higher up especially for buildings that may sit higher up on cliffs and in trees.

No, the air above is not relevant if you are buying tiles that sit under the ground. If you go up to the one that is partial air, you don't need access to the parcel that is nothing but air. Since it's just air, there are no cliffs or trees.