General discussion on this page should be placed at the bottom. Committee discussions should be posted in the relevant section below.

Bluegill River navigability

How far will the Bluegill River be navigable? And what kind of vessels would be primarily traversing the river? Pleasure boats, or cargo barges, or smaller ships? I think it would be helpful for my state to establish a minimum height for fixed-span bridges. --PColumbus73 04:52, 21 September 2019 (CEST)

The Bluegill River at Moama (boundary to Gilliad) is broad 300 m - there it may be deep 3, 4 or 5 m. I do not think, that this is enought for greater seagoing vessels. From Moama to Huntington on the Yarrow-river I think smaller freight ships (deepgoing to 1,5 m or so) can move to Huntington, p.e. with coal for the power-stations.

So, I'm thinking a minimum bridge height of between 65-100 feet (20-30m). The Intracoastal Waterway along the U.S. East Coast has a depth of around 12ft (4m), the bridges that cross it have an average height of about 65ft (20m). The waterway is mostly used by recreational boaters. Some of the bridges that cross the Ohio River have a height of around 100ft (30m) and handles more freight vessels. It sounds like establishing a minimum height would be necessary for the Yarrow and possibly the Wiltham River as well. --PColumbus73 17:12, 22 September 2019 (CEST)

What sort of ships you will let sail on the Bluegill River? And I think, in the Yarrow River can sail only "inland"-ships, means ships only using rivers and canals, but no seagoing ships. For such "inland"-ships with three layers of container you need 7.80 m between Water and bridge - better 8 m / 25 or 26 feet (so on the Rhine, one of the rivers with heavy ship-transportation in Europe). I do not think, that in America container are bigger.--Histor 23:27, 22 September 2019 (CEST)

The average depth of the Ohio River is about 15ft (5m), and is about 19ft (6m) where it meets the Mississippi River. Most of the cargo transport is handled by barges and towboats. Although, steamboats from the 19th -20th Centuries could have been as high as 100ft. It's hard to say regarding pleasure boats since there is a wide variety. I recently added the Burton Greer Bridge (Newlynn Route 27) east of Hoyt, drawing it with a main span of 65 feet (20m) over the Wiltham River. I'd like to hear what @iBallisticWolf's plans are for transportation along the river into his state. For the Yarrow and Wiltham, 65 feet seems reasonable given the width of the two rivers. I'm not sure what New Carnaby or Gilliad's plans for river transport, but I think a high bridge span (65ft/20m minimum) would be necessary from Saint Jacobs to the ocean.--PColumbus73 00:57, 23 September 2019 (CEST)

I do not think, that in the New Carnaby part of the Bluegill River will be seen seagoing ships. In Gilliad it may be - there BallisticWolf can say something. Inside Huntington District Bridges may be 8 or 10 m. --Histor 01:32, 23 September 2019 (CEST)

Until we can gather a consensus with Wilthamshire and Gilliad, Newlynn's bridge height requirements will be as follows:

Bluegill River from Anne Abbey to Moama: 100 feet (30 meters) Yarrow River from Moama to Hoyt: 65 feet (20 meters) Yarrow River from Hoyt to Huntington Border: 40 feet (12 meters) Wiltham River from Hoyt to Wilthamshire Border: 65 feet (20 meters)

A bridge that cannot meet these requirements shall be movable. --PColumbus73 02:04, 23 September 2019 (CEST)

Other discussion

Natural features should be decided on by the nation?

I thought we agreed that natural features should be decided on by the nation? That's at least how Isleno set it up to be.

Rhiney boi 02:39, 12 June 2019 (CEST)

Some people in the forums said that the locals should have more of a say. This solution seems to work fine, imo.--Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2019 (CEST)

Anyone on OGF can offer suggestions, but seems to make the most sense that the people who actually have to do the mapping should be the ones who get to pick what the various features are called. -TheMayor (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2019 (CEST)

Okay.

Rhiney boi 03:41, 12 June 2019 (CEST)

About consistency and verisimilitude

My - very general - concern is that we rather discuss about names (which are, I'm sorry, not interesting and can be replaced at any time) than discuss about where and how mountains/river are placed. By looking on the map I cannot get rid of the impression that mappers randomly draw something which does not fit together. Instead of using the sketches to discuss where mountain ranges are and adding details there is nothing done so far, am I wrong? (yes, I know, some territories are working rather on their topo than on motorways!)--Mstr (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

Name selection for smaller rivers

What would be the criteria for selecting names for smaller rivers shared by two or more states? Within Sierra there are two shared with other states, one of which ends up forming part of my state's border (and leads to a tripoint). Brunanter (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2020 (CET)

I guess you talk with the owner of the two states with which you share a river, discuss possible names, and finalize a river name.

IiEarth (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2020 (CET)