Highways and Motorways

Available Route Numbers

All available route numbers must be requested with a route plan before adding to the map or declaring the route number assigned. Submit route number requests here. -TheMayor (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

Example: I'm requesting FS-93 for a new route between Minnonigan, AR120-57, and the national boundary at Naxema. The route would begin at FS-91 in Ondassagam, MN and generally parallel the westernmost Grand Lake, connecting with FS-20 and ultimately reaching a FSA southern neighbor that isn't connected to the motorway network from the Lakes Region. While the route is relatively short and only directly serves two states, I think a motorway connection to one of our neighboring countries merits a secondary route number. -TheMayor (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

FSA Coordinator Decision: Since AR120-57 is currently vacant, FS-93 is tentatively approved for use but may be subject to change once an owner of AR120-57 is identified. -TheMayor (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-59

"FS-59": I am requesting a motorway designation, FS-59, for a motorway along the coast of Tulpanen. FS-59's northern terminus would be at the junction with FS-20 (currently on the map as Route 30, which will be changed later). The route would roughly follow the Grand Lake to the west before ending somewhere in the peninsula in southern Tulpanen at a two lane state route. The route would also serve a future major city that is to later be mapped in the central lakeshore of Tulpanen. Although being an intrastate route (unless the route gets shifted to the east to follow the shoreline of AR120-37) the connections FS-59 would make are important enough to warrant a secondary route number. --Yoyo21 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2019 (CEST)

CEST)

FSA Coordinator Decision: Wherever possible a planned motorway should end at either another motorway, a military facility, or a major transportation facility (airport, seaport, ferry, etc.) rather than a two-lane road. However, if your route roughly followed your western coast and hooked east to enter AR120-37 (and a likely future motorway that runs down to Spero), that routing would merit a FS motorway number. So your two options are (1) keep your original plan and make it a state route, or (2) tweak your plan to head into AR120-37. If you want to do (2), let me know and FS-59 will be tentatively approved contingent on your future neighbor. (If you envision FS-10 to be that east-west connection or if you have other ideas, post a quick sketch of your statewide motorway plan.) -TheMayor (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2019 (CEST)

File:TulpanenMotorwayPlan.png

Here is my current plan for Tulpanen's motorways. I might end up switching 59 and 459 to give 59 a shorter route around the metropolis, but that would make the FS 10 and FS-59 concurrency longer. --Yoyo21 (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2019 (CEST)

I'm approving your application for FS-59, although I'd suggest flip-flopping FS-59 and FS-259 through your planned metropolis. -TheMayor (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2019 (CEST)

Summer 2022 status: Not present on map due to changes in state ownership; number remains reserved for a similar corridor in this area, if needed. --TheMayor (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FS-22

Me and Histor are proposing a new motorway, FS-22, as a connector between the Stanton metropolis and FS-21. The motorway, currently designated as I-28, starts in Ann'harbor and goes due west, crossing FS-11 and FS-20. After going past the Arghennite border, it will traverse gaps in the Arghenna Mountains and pass by a few Stanton tourist towns and a future city of around 20k I have planned in the Rodham Valley. Then it will through Gilliad and terminate at FS-21. As planned, it would go through 3 states, qualifying it as a proper FS-xx route. --Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2019 (CEST)

FSA Coordinator Decision: Assuming Jarrodcamo could work it into his plans for southern Gilliad, I'm approving this request. But please verify with him when you get a chance. -TheMayor (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2019 (CEST)

We veryfire, before we ask you. This F-22 is o.k. from New Carnaby, Arghenna and Gilliad --Histor (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-11 and FS-9 in Stanton

@Histor, shouldnt your FS-9 be FS-11. Otherwise where does 11 go to the South of Stanton. Or, it could be your FS-13. Either way, either FS-9 or FS-13 should become FS-11. --Zytik (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

No. Both - FS 9 and FS-11 - will end in Stanton and both at the FS-1. The direct connection F-11 and F-9 is FS-109. The FS-11 (Class "A") is the main way from Stanton to the northwest and FS-9 (Class "B")leads to the south like the FS-13 (old I-83). FS-11 and FS-9 are different traffic-relations with different importance. I never had liked the old I-85 with its stange curves. --Histor (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-11 is a primary route that must continue south of Stanton (and indeed all the way to the FSA’s national boundary with Kaneiwa). Do not alter the endpoints of primary routes without first consulting the FSA Coordinator. -TheMayor (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

You mean, the FS-11 only will touch Stanton? As you all like it, then this motorway in Stanton must run a while over the same route as FS-1. The conection FS-11 to FS-11 (formerly FS-9) then will be FS-111 as "Stanton-Bypass" (or what?) - What with I-28? [1] If I-30 become FS-20, then I think FS-22 is a better number for I-28. Tell me, what is your meaning, before I spent a lot of time for later unused work.

But then have an eye on I-30, now FS-20 and the ridiculus bow to Duxbury instead a short way Swansea - Swampscott - Warwick. Most importance of a motorway lays not in the number-system, but in the usage for heavy and fast traffic.

And what means "pending" at FS-13? The natural target for this motorway is Perth in Kaneiwa or Ushen. Do you not think, a town like Stanton needs some more connections as towns like Xavier, Lafayette, Saint-Jacobs or New Annshire? --Histor (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

Duxbury is a future project city of mine, just have not had time to develop it yet. The area to the north (Danvers/Ipswich) is also planned to be a large tourist area, thus the highway bows out to carry Duxbury city and tourist capacity. Plus, old trappard and Swansea are probably going to be removed or severely downgraded in size. I am currently talking with Greg about how he has a lot of big cities he has planned for Aidlenaide, which doesnt make much sense. --Zytik (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

You may have noticed states to the south include FS-11 in their systems, so FS-11 needs to pass through the Stanton area, not end in it. FS-9 and FS-13 are "pending" because new route numbers need to be approved, specifically for reasons like this where they may not be warranted. For instance, here's a quick sketch I came up with for potential routings in the Stanton area, based on what neighboring states like Penquisset have already implemented. This is only one possible option and should not be considered the final word in the matter, but serves as an example of how it still can work for everyone involved.

File:StantonMotorwayProposal.png

This suggestion only requires one new route number (FS-22) and avoids most concurrencies. If you have issues with the routing of FS-20 into Aidlenaide, FS-30 is also available in this location instead of FS-20, but in either case those decisions are both outside of New Carnaby. In this sketch, there are two FS-520s, which is intentional since they can either be connected in the future via the Athloon Beltway/Yorknew Parkway or have this as a "freeway revolt" location.

But the bigger point is, we all have to work with our neighboring states to make this work from a national perspective. If anyone wants to change the overall plan or wants to add to it, make sure your neighbors are in agreement and try to understand the mapping impacts outside your own state before making significant changes to the plan which all took us quite a while to work out. -TheMayor (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

This is good, thank you--I added FS-11 to Culpepper because it was part of the plan. I am open to changes, of course, and I am happy to work with anyone on this. Originally what used to be I-83 was supposed to go through Culpepper and leave the state where FS-11 does now, I'm happy to connect that route and number it whatever works. --Whateversusan (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

Sorry, I had a lot of agreements with Zytix, Mstr, BMSOUZA, Easky30 and Portopolis for New Carnaby and Stanton. Long months this motorway was I-83 with a definded target and if now not FS-13, what then else? To downgrade to FS-211 is not o.k. You never ask me for this. This motorway do not join the FS-11, but run more to the southwest. Stanton is a city with 9 000 000 inhabitants and it is clear, that Stanton needs more connections as some small towns in the FSA, hidden in a djungle of motorways.

Indeed FS-22 needs only one new route number. But you get free # 28. What is the problem? --Histor (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

Keep in mind I have absolutely no say in this matter, so all of you can feel free to ignore me. But looking at it, I did have a suggestion/thought/question. Question- where to the southwest was the then-I-83 supposed to go? Was there a planned collaborative city in New Carnaby? Or was it more mostly planned to connect to the node mapped as Greenville? If it was planned to connect to Greenville, naming it FS-210 might be more reasonable, acting as a branch off Greenville's future FS-10 that leads into Stanton, eventually connecting with FS-20 (thus technically, though perhaps rule-bendingly, qualifying it as a 3-digit "bypass"). This way it's still not using a major number, but is allowed to follow the general route Histor originally planned. As Histor himself said earlier, "Most importance of a motorway lays not in the number-system, but in the usage for heavy and fast traffic"- and a theoretical FS-210 wouldn't have to actually be less important just because of the 3 digit number. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2019 (CEST)

The only reason I assumed what was I-83 and is now FS-13 had anything to do with my state is that before I started mapping there somebody drew a "future I-83 route" from the New Carnaby border down to Astrantia (which I deleted). I actually don't think it makes sense to go there, so having it bypass Culpepper and head southwest works fine. --Whateversusan (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2019 (CEST)

Meanwhile Tom_m7 to me has written, that FS-13 through "AR-210-18" is o.k. - so it can be switched in the list to "approved"--Histor (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2019 (CEST)

FS 85 or WA 91

This highway would be the main connector between two large cities, Miller and Gleason. As these two cities are industry hubs, many materials that are not able to travel by train would have to be transported. Currently, the shortest way is to go through Pike, Wallawaukee, and Gramercy. This route would go through the middle of the state, and if necessary, continue on into AR 120 - 46. If not an interstate, I could make it similar to the Florida Turnpike and have it be a toll route. -Oof boi (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2019 (CEST)

~~File:FS-85HighwayProposalWalkegan.png~~

FSA Coordinator Decision: Since it appears FS-81 will be running east of the river through AR120-45, I'm approving your request for FS-85 between Miller and your planned city of Donovan, contingent on you extending FS-85 into AR120-46, since that state does not have a planned north-south motorway option. -TheMayor (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (CEST)

~~Since plans for Walkegan have changed, in coordination with Sierra FS-85 has been removed and is available. -TheMayor (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2020 (CEST)~~

See second request for FS-85 below. --TheMayor (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FS 14, 16, or 18

Per a telegram I sent to the involved states: " In my head, this motorway connects Hearthsbridge (which, if I am correct is the capital of Culpeper), Five Lakes (Capital of Teenesccan), and Pronoro (Capital of Fermont). In my opinion, this makes sense because:

1. It connects FS 1 and FS 11, so that people in Fermont don't have to drive all the way up to Stanton to get to Hearthsbridge, or vice versa.

2.It connects the ports in Pronoro to Five Lakes' fishing and ultimately to Hearthsbridge, which is, per the Culpeper plans, and industrial city, and one that connects to markets in Radienne and Sadikady

3.It reduces the traffic flow into Stanton by opening a "shortcut" to get from FS 1 to FS 11. This is better for the economy, since goods, services, and ideas will be able to travel faster with less traffic. "

Both whateversusan and JayPlaysBeamNG are on board with the idea. We are just waiting for approval. A segment has already been built as a tollway (technically 4) from TN-1 to the Culpepper-Teenesccan state line under multiple designations (GTGT, GMPT, FLBT, and CRET). Other segments may be built in the future, depending on what the result of this is.

Best regards,

Talk to Rhiney boi 00:27, 18 June 2019 (CEST)

FSA Coordinator Decision: I’m approving you and your neighbors’ request to use FS-16 for the proposed alignment. However, I’d suggest reaching out to the New Carnaby mappers, since pushing the new route through Hearthsbridge and connecting it with FS-13 near Shady Lake seems logical (depending on the geography along the state border). -TheMayor (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2019 (CEST)

If wished, this route in New Carnaby can cross FS-13 near exit 17 and run to the Capital of New Carnaby (may be partly in construction) --Histor (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2019 (CEST).

That is a good plan. I will map this to the Culpepper/New Carnaby border near NC state route 50. --Whateversusan (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-24

FS-24 will be a new route that connects the cities of Lake City (Minnonigan), Pike (Walkegan), and Nordseehaven (Oronotia), via a new route north of Lake Glen. On the eastern end, the route meets FS-20 just west of the Walkegan/Oronotia state line to avoid requiring an additional bridge over the unnamed river. All three affected stateowners are in agreement on this routing. -TheMayor (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2019 (CEST)

Following the reorientation of Wallawaukee and the approval of the ~~new FS-18~~ relocated FS-12, FS-20 will be moving to the previous alignment of FS-24~~; FS-24 will be reapplied to portions of FS-30 to allow FS-30 to move back to its original alignment, making the FS-32 designation available again. --TheMayor (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)~~

FS-24 has been removed in its entirety and is available for other requests. --TheMayor (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FS-9

"FS-9": I am requesting a motorway designation, FS-9, for a motorway along the Ardentic Coast between San Vegas, Arlington and Oceansburough, Boscainifornio (potentially Tansid, Natrinia). I have gotten approval from the state owner of Arlington, but not from Natrinia yet. FS-9’s northern terminus would be at the junction with FS-511 in San Vegas, AR. The route would roughly follow the coast and in the Bonnaventure metro area would replace AR 8 and BC 31 and would end at FS-15 in Oceansburough. The route would serve the San Vegas metro area, the large Bonnaventure-Oswego metro area and surrounding exurban areas, as well as the Oceansburough metro area. Although it would only serve two states, FS-9 would be extremely important enough to warrant a secondary route number, considering the effects on commerce and overall traffic volume. --TBMap (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2019 (CEST)

Is there a particular reason why FS-11 couldn’t connect Bonnaventure and San Vegas? Having two parallel motorways only about 30 miles apart seems like it could be a little excessive. Also, would there be any plans to extend the route north into Larimont? A new route that basically dead-ends into San Vegas may not be terribly realistic. -TheMayor (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2019 (CEST)

Currently, I’m planning on rerouting FS-11 so it would connect directly from Morsboro to Yorksey, then just south of New St Richards and into Arlington. Therefore, it’d be awkward to connect to Yorksey then almost dead east to Bonnaventure, then north. Also, the owner of Arlington has expressed to me that he wants to route FS-11 through the dead center of his state. Yet, FS-9 would serve as a direct connection to three (perhaps four depending on Natrinia or Larimont) major urban hubs. IRL, Interstate 97 and Interstate 95 are within 10 miles of each other south of Baltimore, MD. I believe that FS-9 would be feasible because of the major amount of development planned for my coastal area, which would definitely need motorway level roads, and realistically the state wouldn’t be able to afford such a route, so a national motorway would be the only possible option. Also, FS-9 would likely extend north and south into Larimont and Natrinia, yet I haven’t discussed the idea with them yet, which is why I didn’t list them directly. --TBMap (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2019 (CEST)

Primary motorways shouldn’t end at auxiliary motorways, so FS-9 would need to go into Larimont somehow and end at a future east-west primary motorway. So you should work with Larimont to see what their motorway plans are and how FS-9 would fit into them before we can officially designate it as such. -TheMayor (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2019 (CEST)

Though I haven’t gotten a response back from Larimont yet, couldn’t FS-9 just end at FS-11 west of San Vegas in Arlington for the time being until built into Larimont to an East-West Motorway? --TBMap (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2019 (CEST)

Is it correct that you’re suggesting something like a giant “7” in Arlington, running northeast along the coast from Bonnaventure, then doglegging west from San Vegas to the future FS-11 in the “dead center” of Arlington? That doesn’t strike me as a terribly logical routing for a primary motorway. Maybe a rough sketch of what you (and Arlington) have in mind for your planned routings would make this discussion easier. -TheMayor (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2019 (CEST)

File:FSPlannedHighwayMapArlington.jpeg

Actually, this is more of what me and Pancake Killer we’re thinking --TBMap (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2019 (CEST)

I like this. Approved. -TheMayor (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2019 (CEST)

Eh, just to update this talk section... FS-9 no longer exists, as there are was a lot of changes in the area (states increasing and decreasing territory area, state owners change, etc etc etc) -- BMSOUZA (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

FS-25 75

I wish to request for FS-25. FS-25 connects AR120-73 with Apawiland (my state), continues into Riopoderos, and could possibly have its southern terminus at AR120-45. I wish to do so as the northern state could be some sort of corridor into the mountains like Apawiland, and maybe AR120-73 could be a former agricultural state. Also, it's the quickest way to get from Apawiland or Sierra to Alormen. Feel free to extend this route or to cut it off at some parts. IiEarth (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2020 (CET)

FS-25 is denied at this location since it doesn’t come close to fitting into the national numbering system. If you want it to be FS-75, however, that would be permitted. -TheMayor (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2020 (CET)

Yes, that would be fine. Sorry for the inconvenience.

IiEarth (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2020 (CET)

FS-37

Due to a motorway being forced into Fellshire from Ardencia, I'm requesting for the route to be designated as FS-37. The routing is the exact same as FL 37, seen here. --Yoyo21 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2020 (CEST)

Approved. -TheMayor (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2020 (CEST)

FS-40 and 89

Based on conversations with various stateowners, FS-44 is being removed from the primary system and is now available for a secondary route number. FS-40, which was previously reserved, will take over the route of (the mostly unmapped) FS-44 between Nenova/Barstone and Massodeya City. The planned FS-44 route through Minnonigan, Aquilia, and Tennewa has now been assigned FS-89. -TheMayor (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2020 (CEST)

FS-99

After consulting with mappers in the northwest, the following changes have been made:

FS-87 has been removed and is now available as a secondary route.
FS-91 has been rerouted between north of Jundah-Stuart and Los Reyes on the former FS-87 alignment.
FS-90 west of Los Reyes is now planned for an inland alignment through Sasepcro and ending in Esperanza.
FS-99 has been assigned as a new primary route between north of Jundah-Stuart and Los Reyes via the coastal cities in Cosperica.

-TheMayor (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2020 (CEST)

FS-85

Requesting reuse of the previously-approved FS-85 number for a similar but different corridor through northern Seneppi. The planned FS-85 corridor would follow the Fort Braxton Post Road motor trail from Wallawaukee, northwest through Seneppi through Finch Hill and into Gleason, then into Minnonigan along the Jonas River, then into Wahauja near Thedford and on to FS-91 near Fort Braxton. However, following approval of the corridor, the Wahauja DOT would not follow through with upgrading the road in that state, leaving the only motorway portions between Gleason and Wallawaukee, with additional segments through northern Minnonigan. This request is to use FS-85 only between Gleason and Wallawaukee, with long-term plans to still continue the route to Fort Braxton in the more distant future. -TheMayor (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2021 (CEST)

Approved. --Yoyo21 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2021 (CEST)

FS-26

On behalf of ItsTybear and Alessa, I would like to request a new secondary route designation for a proposed highway between Eriksburg, OT, to FS-20 east of Kennsville in -36. FS-26 would link medium sized cities to larger cities on either by allowing direct access to Eriksburg, OT, and indirect access to Kennsville. The major cities (<100,000 metro population) include Eriksburg, OT, Plainsburgh, ZH, Wimuhake, ZH, New Harmony, ME, and Kennsville (area), -36. Attached below is the planned route for FS-26.

File:FS26plan.png
Planned route for FS-26.
This route has been coordinated off site and only requires route number approval. Plans adapted from an original plan by Alessa. -AnimationSky (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2022 (CEST)

~~Proposal looks good to me. Approved. -TheMayor (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)~~

Due to changes in the region, this route has been removed entirely and is available for requests. --TheMayor (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FS-32

On behalf of several states, I would like to submit an official request for the secondary route designation FS-32. This highway will run between Brenton, MN to Minneuka, ME. This corridor would also serve as a vital connection for small cities like Bixoheni, ZH that currently are not on the motorway network. It would also serve as an important shipping route between Minneuka, ME, and Eriksburg, OT, and allow easier access to the Lake City Metro via FS-91. The major cities (>100,000 metro population) along this route include Gleason, SN, Donovan, SN, Mennonia, OT, Eriksburg, OT, and Minneuka, ME. Attached below is the planned route for FS-32.

Planned route for FS-32.

This route has been coordinated off site and only requires route number approval. Plans adapted from TheMayor, and Alessa. -AnimationSky (|talk) 20:56, 28 April 2022 (CEST)

For clarity, the plan in Mennowa is to end about 30 miles north of Fort Constable with the connection to Minneuka shown via FS 61. — Alessa _(talk) 19:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Approved. -TheMayor (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Following the reorientation of Wallawaukee and the approval of the ~~new FS-18~~ relocated FS-12, FS-20 will be moving to the previous alignment of FS-24; ~~FS-24 will be reapplied to portions of FS-30 to allow FS-30 to move back to its original alignment, making the FS-32 designation available again.~~ --TheMayor (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

FS-32 has been removed from the map, but will remain available pending future mapping in the region. --TheMayor (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FS-18

Requesting an additional motorway number in the West Lakes. With the recent move of Wallawaukee to the south, would like to reroute FS-20 over the current FS-24 west of Nordseehaven into Lake City and to Deodeca via the current FS-30 to Barre Harbor. FS-18 would be the "new" route connecting Wallawaukee and Lake City via Gramercy, Clinton, and Miller, continuing northwest over old FS-20 to the Deodeca border. --TheMayor (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

~~Approved as regional coordinator. — Alessa _(talk) 23:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)~~

Due to rerouting of FS-10 and repurposing FS-12, this number is no longer needed and is available for future requests. --TheMayor (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FS-8

To free up an additional route number between FS-10 and FS-20, existing FS-12 (between Makaska and Deodeca via -54, Nishowigan, and Minnonigan) will be renumbered to FS-8. --TheMayor (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Due to rerouting of FS-10 and repurposing FS-12, this number is no longer needed and is available for future requests. --TheMayor (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

FS-67

Per discussion with regional partners and ItsTybear, we requested approval of FS-67 between Des Nonnes and Harmegido via Plainsburgh. Although I could unilaterally approve it as regional coordinator, I have notified the other regional coordinators to ensure no objections. — Alessa _(talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

FS-3, 65, and 74

Motorway numbering plan for Alormen, as of 29 Dec 2023.

As part of a statewide motorway numbering plan, the following new motorway routes are proposed:

FS-3, a new "historic" motorway that would branch off of FS-1 somewhere between Massodeya City and Huntington that crosses Alormen northwest-southeast to, on a macro scale, connect Huntington to the Asperic Ocean at Puerto Eloisa.
FS-65, a connection between Andreapolis and the current junction of FS-71 and FS-50.
FS-74, a renumbering of the current FS-80 northeast of Andreapolis, with FS-80 being truncated at Alamar. It's also possible that the current motorway in this location will be downgraded to a trunk; however, the FS-74 designation should still be reserved regardless in case of a future upgrade.

Additionally, FS-70 would be unofficially "extended" via Randalia routes M1 and M2 to form a contiguous extra-territorial route to connect Alormen with the Northeast. --TheMayor (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Motor Trails

Please use this section for discussions and collaborations of motor trails.

Railways

Freight Corridor Workspace

To help guide coordination on freight rail corridors, please use this table. Note that, unlike the motorways network, parallel and competing routes are welcome. Only one main line per company, please. In the future, some lines and companies will be consolidated to form national companies. Company names listed below will be considered entries for potential national railroad company names; however, the final list of major national railroad company names will be determined by consensus. Except for "Completed" corridors, all corridors listed below are considered non-official.

Company Name	Status	Northern or Western Terminus	Southern or Eastern Terminus	Relation (optional)	Lead Organizer	Confirmed States	States in Discussion	Potential States	Notes	Last Updated
Minnonigan Central Railroad	Discussion	Port Massehanee, AL	Lake City, MN		TheMayor	MN	AQ, TJ, AL	71, TE, OQ	Discussing alignments in Tejoma and Osaquoya.	2020-05-03
Sauganash and Northern Railroad	Discussion	Jundah-Stuart, TA	Lake City, MN		TheMayor	MN	CL, TA	WJ	Discussing alignments in Clamash and Tauhon.	2020-05-03
Great Eastern and Stanton Folkstone Railway Company	partially established before recent debate			GESF^∈^⊾ (#FC6A0C)	mstr	AL, AS, CP, CR, EM, FT, NC, OK, SN, WK, WM		WS, 31, NP, 48, MI, MN, 59		2020-05-08
Stanton Folkstone Railway	partially established before recent debate	Wallawaukee, SN	Folkstone, OK		mstr					2020-05-08
Great Eastern Railway	partially established before recent debate	Port Massehanee, AL	Hope Harbor, AS		mstr				via Folkstone, OK	2020-05-08
Compass and Western Railroad	Construction; Some Eastern Portions complete. Relations have been established.	Not yet Confirmed (As of now, WS; Anticipating Sierra)	Not yet Confirmed (AR, PQ, DI area)	C&WR	Zytik	NC, PQ, AR, GL, WS, NP	CD, DI, MN	OS, RP, SR,	Objective is Sierra to Arghenna/Penquisset/DI	2020-06-14
Scantuck & Southern Railroad	Complete	Waltmore, NC	Divinity's Grace, CR	S&S	Whateversusan	NC, CR				5/9/2020
Lakes, Mennowa, and Northern Railroad	Construction (conceived and partially constructed before recent debates)	Unnamed planned city in northern Tennewa (northwest), ME/OQ border	Lake City, MN (southwest); Minneuka, ME (east)	LM&N^∈^⊾	Alessa	ME, MI, MN, SN, TE (unbuilt), WA, WK	AQ, OQ	34, 44, 48, 52, AL, TJ, WM		6/13/2020
Hope Harbor Railroad	far from complete	Hartford, AS (west); Newport, AS (north)	Ampersand, AS (east)	HHRR	Marcello	AS	none	none	via Hope Harbor, AS Note: this is an independent (Class 2) regional. Please do not re-organise or incorporate in larger entity !	2020/04/06
Astrantia Northwestern	far from complete	East Vermouth, AS (west); Greenboro, AS (north)	Newport, AS (south/east)	ANWRR	Marcello	AS	none	none	via Hartford, AS Note: this is an independent (Class 2) regional. Please do not re-organise or incorporate in larger entity !	2020/04/06
Newport Harbor Belt	far from complete	Newport, AS	Newport, AS	NHBRR	Marcello	AS	none	none	Note: this is an independent (Class 3) local. Please do not re-organise or incorporate in larger entity !	2020/07/05
Walkegan and Eastern Seneppi Railroad	partially complete	Gleason, WK (northwest); city in NE Walkegan (north)	Foxbend/Southern Seneppi (south)	W&ES	Ernestpcosby	SN, WK	none	AR120-52	via Wallawaukee, SN Note: this is an independent (Class 2) regional. Please do not re-organise or incorporate in larger entity !	6/12/2020
Great Western and Asperic	Extant in part, being worked on	Jundah, Tauh. (W)/Mojaca, Cosp. (N)	Minneuka, Menn. (S)/Jericho, Tej. (E)	GW&A	Brunanter	Sra., Menn., Temp.	-	Tej., Sra., Apa., Tauh., Cosp., (-82/-74)		6/14/2020

I deliberately added two regional railroads to the above to avoid them to be 'eaten up' by larger initiatives. That already happened in part, actually, without asking permission. I sympathise with collaborative efforts, but one of the reasons I joined the AR120 initiative is that I wanted to build some regionals. Politely asking for trackage rights might work, however ;-) --Marcello (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2020 (CEST)

One of the ongoing challenges of the AR120 project is balancing any "first-come-first-served" initiatives (that inevitably end up with a "race" to do something before someone else does and ends up pushing out any future mappers from participation) and actually getting things done. No one else should be mapping in your state without your permission, of course, so the point of this exercise is to get more regional coordination going between neighboring states to get some of these corridors mapped. That said, I think the FSA will have significantly more liberal trackage rights policies between the various railroads than what occurs in the U.S., so please don't feel "left behind" on any of this. -TheMayor (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2020 (CEST)

No hardship. We talked it all out. I (Hope Harbor RR) have granted (bridge traffic) trackage rights to MSTR (GESR). But how to map that properly ?-Marcello (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2020 (CEST)

There is a large overlap in S&S and GESR in Upstate Culpepper. Both are marked in a relation to the same track. What would that signify ? Double ownership ? Trackage or haulage rights given by one (who?) to another (who ??) ? Susan and MSTR quarrelling ? Just us all trying out what to do ?

Standardized relation usage for railways in the FS

It would be beneficial to assemble railroad lines (all ways between two destinations) in a relation (one for north/eastbound and one for west/southbound?, separately for freight and passenger rail if needed) and create corridors, etc. with relations consisting of these relations. Are there any proposals how to do this without significant effort and simple access (where/how to list them?)?--Mstr (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

see also the documentation: route=railway, route=train. --Mstr (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

I’ve been using the recommended tags on OGF:Federal States/Railways when mapping new railways or altering older railways, but I think while we’re still determining national corridors (see above) tagging relations on a national level is still a bit premature. You are welcome to get a head start in the areas you’re mapping, though. -TheMayor (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

Thank you for your generous offer! Spending much effort to create relations no one uses makes no sense for me. So if there is no effort to debate basic requirements/standards and provide a "how to do" what is it worth to list "corridors" and roleplay history of companies? Unfortunately, the corridor workspace rather looks like a new version of Railroad Tycoon than discussing how to complement the map. For me, it would be nice to get ideas how to organize these issues better (from the beginning on). If no one is interested in the mapping behind it, okay, continue playing.--Mstr (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

I agree with you Mstr. There isn’t being enough to justify wiki freight on the actual map. Recently I have been pushing for the development of more freight infrastructure and I think that all things should be mapped with relations. (BTW see my Sandbox where I have displayed different railways including ArchRail and Compass and Western Freight on Multimaps)I agree tagging should be Standardized, and the only thing I would change is that I do not think it matters to tag both directions on a line, as many times trains travel in a given direction not on the same track, especially in freight (at least in my experience) so I have instead 1 relation for each routing that includes both directional services. I have been trying to coordinate freight infrastructure with several states including New Carnaby, Penquisset, Arghenna,Gilliad, Washaukee, and Nipewa. For now I have done the mainline tracks and over the next weeks I will be adding the sidings, yards, and some industrial areas as well as a connection to some seaboard ports. I would love to collaborate with you on these things to make it the best that it can be, if you want. If FSA leadership is not willing to take the initiative I suppose some of us can at least try. —Zytik (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (CEST)

For what it's worth, I think the work Zytik has done with the Compass & Western railroad -- specifically, coming up with a vision for the primary corridor and working with each stateowner in said corridor to get the railway mapped -- is a successful model that we all should consider emulating to create additional freight rail routes throughout the FSA that will eventually be used to create the major freight railroad companies of the country. I also agree with Zytik in that mapped relations for freight railroads should be bidirectional, as some stretches of rail will be single-tracked, especially outside of the denser areas of the FSA.

To be clear, I appreciate the work that both mstr and Zytik have done so far to help create integral parts of our national freight rail network in the FSA. It is my goal to empower other FSA mappers to create additional freight rail connections (and companies) elsewhere in our shared nation that we can use to build the complex, robust rail network that the FSA deserves, and I hope I can rely on the expertise and experience that both of you have in getting more mappers involved. -TheMayor (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2020 (CEST)

I checked etensively on OSM at specific locations both in the USA and Canada, and could not find a coherent mapping for trackage- and haulage rights. What do we do ? —Marcello (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2020 (CEST)

We will have to determine how we want to standardize things for the FSA. In the meantime my recommendation would be to tag each way based on the owner of that track, and then add route relations for each company. Wherever a route relation exists where the operator doesn’t match the way’s tag, we can assume that indicates trackage rights. But this will be an important point of discussion in the near future. -TheMayor (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2020 (CEST)

Adding separate relations for each line, infrastructure owner, operator and trains to a track makes it extremely complicated to modify the mapping later on due to the large number of relations. While the pros and cons of different concept are an ongoing discussion in the osm community, it might be a different situation here: Please keep in mind that we are not osm where the real situation is fixed and mapping does not fluctuate or drastically change! In addition, if ways are not split into logical sections (what I have seen usually they are not!), it is impossible to add any meaningful relation without modifying the map. This should be avoided. Placing a route relation on logical track sections (from the beginning on) solves both problems. These relations can easily be added to network, company, train, each other relation (relations in another relation, not ways in a relation!), are extremely simple to maintain once they are created (very important!), very flexible, no modification of the map to place a new route needed. Only infrastructure ownership should be directly mapped on the physical track.--Mstr (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2020 (CEST)

Technical details

gauge 1435

really you will tag all rails with 1435 mm? All rails ARE 1435 mm, if no other information is tagged --Histor (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2019 (CEST)

It depends on, usally it is tagged, but at the moment this tag does not seem to be that relevant. It can be added later on without much effort.--Mstr (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

platform lenght

< 300 m for some platforms - I ask myself, what trains there stop. If one wagon ist - let us say - 25 m, then Washington has place for only 9 (and one for the locomotive). What is with Elvis Mystery Train: "Train I ride, 16 coaches long...". Til now I construct platforms for long distance railways with 400 m (15 coaches and loco') --Histor (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

I know some Amtrak trains with 5-7 coaches or less, the Acela Express has 200 m, so short platforms seem to be usual.--Mstr (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

Less-busy stations can have shorter platforms because not all coaches open at each station. If Amtrak is our model, conductors manually open and close the train doors at each stop, and they usually have announcements on approach to the station regarding which coaches will be opening. -TheMayor (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

On my short ride from Newark Airport to New York Penn' station with New Jersey Link last year the conductor did with my 9 $ ticket this and that and I ask me, for what and why. Indeed, he was a friendly man, but the efficience? So for mapping we can learn, that at smaller stations the platforms are short. Can the a station like this be realistic? [2] --Histor (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

fright train waiting tracks

Can it be helpful to discuss about this? In Germany since 1900 this tracks are long 700 m. What with the FSA? Do we need it there, that slow freight trains can wait for faster passenger trains? Or shall the passanger train run after the freight train in the same slow way? I fear, it is so. --Histor (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

We have to talk about the max. freigth train length, but freight trains NEVER wait for passenger trains since usually they have priority (and there are no passenger trains).--Mstr (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

The best-case (longest) siding on a single-track main line would probably be something like this, about 3 km. This siding was recently upgraded in Illinois for Amtrak’s increase to 110mph service on the Chicago-St. Louis line, which is a busy freight line with five round-trip daily passenger trips. -TheMayor (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

Single-track mainline. O.k. - what potential given away. One thing is positiv: I have not to map long sidings --Histor (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

Thank you mstr!

Just wanted to briefly say thank you to mstr for getting this page up and running. -TheMayor (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

Class I Railroads

This was a very quick sketch (which is why it's in Paint) but here's one option for six Class I freight railroads in the FSA and a possible network. Names and routes are all up for debate, but I think we should start by limiting the number of Class I railroads to a manageable number (this sample uses six, or seven if there's enough interest in an additional north-south line between the central river and the eastern mountains). -TheMayor (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2019 (CEST) File:MN-FSA ClassI.png

I'm not totally sure, but I think it would be possible for competing railroad companies to avoid connecting with each other unless they have to. In areas served by two or three companies, I think it would be interesting to see how these areas are mapped.

Finally, I'm interested in seeing how the railroad companies choose their routes within the states. Will companies 'bid' on existing railroad lines and facilities? If a state has some well mapped rail infrastructure, maybe it would attract more companies to want to operate within the state? Just a thought! ---PColumbus73 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2019 (CEST)

Unlike the roads, I'm building my rail lines in a historical manner, going with the first, earlier routes now and adding to them as the rail network expands. Some may go away/become abandoned as more modern routes are added. I also definitely imagine that several companies may serve a single route (versus individual lines per company early on). Brunanter (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2019 (CEST)

Ports

Should certain ports have a certain coverage area? For instance, the ports within the Stanton-Ann'harbor-Warwick metro area could be the busiest ports on the East Coast and serve a massive portion of the FSA, however, a port at Anne Abbey would serve a smaller region, consisting primarily of neighboring states? ---PColumbus73 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2019 (CEST)

Ports should be somewhat self-selected based on topography, given that large coastal cities would have needed a safe harbor for ships to begin with. That said, this is OGF, so that’s not really an actual limitation. How far inland each port serves should be based on the port’s infrastructure (highways, railways, etc.) so mappers of the largest ports need to commit to have plenty of landside mapping to function. -TheMayor (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2019 (CEST)

Help & Advisors

Is there anyone who specializes in realistic railways who might be willing and able to give advice to others about designing realistic rail lines? I know I could use assistance in creating realistic railyards. ---PColumbus73 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2019 (CEST)

I have some experience, but when in doubt, just explore Chicago on OSM for rail yard inspiration: Clearing Yard, Cicero Yard, Global II, and Schiller Park Yard are good freight examples; Western Avenue and 14th Street are good passenger coach yard examples. -TheMayor (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2019 (CEST)

Theres also Eklas to help as well. Check his railway tutorials.--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2019 (CEST)

Updated Zone Map

2021-12-21 Version

Submitted for review is an updated railway zone map, since there have been several changes in the FSA since the last sketch. Major differences:

The Alormen Zone now wraps along the coast to include Alamar and San Pascual.
Since Wilthamshire and Caroline have been merged, Wilthamshire is now part of the Northeast Zone, with the extreme southwest corner remaining in the Mid-Ardentic Zone to maintain the existing system on the Massodeya City-Huntington corridor.
State boundaries have been updated to current versions.

Any other thoughts or comments on this update? -TheMayor (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while since we established this system. Can you remind me where the need of the map, and the company system at large, came from?--Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The current system came about in summer 2020, based on the advisory vote about railways, and then the system was developed, voted on, and passed 31-2. Documentation is available here. —TheMayor (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as an updating of the older map, I think this is a fair, balanced approach. — Alessa _(talk) 19:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.--Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Aviation

Collab talk:Federal States/Transportation