Regarding your parking idea:
(“Maybe my assumptions are wrong? It is even possible to set a "restricted area"? that the amount will take an alternate route to avoid? “)
You want a “Zig-zag PARK” option” ? Which way should the mount slew – up, down, or just incrementally poke around the Zone, to AVOID the restricted area – as ... iRobot Roomba Robotic Vacuum Cleaners ... would, by bumping into objects or electronic fences? I’m sure that could be done, but like a robot, it might take a long time to slew past, or just Park, by such trial & error.
I suppose the present APCC Limits Meridian Map could be modified to include dotted outlines of obstacle “islands” rather than just outer border envelopes on the map. Then the program could choose the shorter tangential path, above or below the “island zone”, to slew past it. Of course, this would only apply to fast slews rather than tracking modes, since neither active visual or imaging use would make sense. Actively tracking high speed satellite targets around such zones, might prove interesting.
Meanwhile, I agree that a “user optioned” override of the Park position limits, seems like a reasonable request –if the user assumes all of the liabilities. The only problem might be that the present APCC “pier avoidance, multi-path slews” program logic might also not function quite as expected, and actually rotates and crashes the scope into the pier instead.
I think the two outcomes offered of “STOP or move to standard PARK” are likely the best that can be offered, for now, without seriously affecting APCC program complexity and thus reliability.