Comment by xp84

Biggest takeaway here for me was that a rule needs definitions for everything, including things which don’t even seem to be part of the rule. To complete this, I was forced to define the vertical extent of a piece of real estate (the boundary between the park and this country‘s airspace), to define a vehicle, versus something you wear or a toy. By the end, I had actually established a kind of caselaw, which defined that a vehicle is a thing that people or cargo can be on top of or inside for the purposes of transport. I defined that something you put on is not a vehicle and defined that there was some upper bound of the park above, which he would not be said to be “in“ it. I defined that the dragging frame was a vehicle, but an identical frame that was not designed to transport. Things would’ve been classified as not a vehicle. Arguably all of the above are just my conjecture. But I could not decide most of those questions without, at least internally, making all of those judgment calls. Each judgment call introduces even more edges, which could be tested by further questions.

I did not consider for a moment whether the emergency situations should have exceptions made. I feel this is at the wrong place to do so. It’s a separate question to me to ask if it’s OK to break rules during emergencies. I really appreciated the creator’s point, which is to contradict the widely held belief among some people that regardless of opinion, there can be one and only one factual determination. It all depends on a dependency chain of definitions, even before you get into the questions like when it is ok to break the rules.