Collab talk:Gobrassanya

From OpenGeofiction
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Freeway cull

Ok, I think a lot of us are aware the density of motorways in Gobrassanya is over the top. I'm thinking it would be worth identifying some of the most obvious, discussing them and coming up with a keep or delete... /wangi (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2016 (CET)

Freeway overload is definitely being felt in some areas. I have culled back some of them such as in the Queensboro area and also in Ormeo. Not sure why part of A-9 was converted to a toll road. I would say we need to place a moratorium on new freeways for the time being. Not sure of the need of A-470 in Frühlen nor the extra free/tollways in Katyapura either. seems like overkill to me. In densely populated areas such as the "Gobras City/Milaukashka/Ominoso Metroplex" or Laguna Metro area it makes more sense to have freeways spaced more closely together. but not in rural areas. which is why I rerouted part of A5 onto A51 to remove a freeway that wasn't needed. --Indyroads (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2016 (CET)

Dapen Lake Area

It seems we have a new area of freeway overload in the Dapen Lake area of Phailoon. This area was originally a rural lake with only a small settlement whuch has now been mapped into a new metropolis with sprawling motorways and bypasses. I think this may need to be culled back considerably. Is there a consensus that this area was to maintain a more rural setting or are larger towns and bypasses that have been mapped appropriate development for the area. I am concerned that this is more urban than intended and being that this was originally off the major highway networks would not have grown into the size it now is. .. Thoughts--Indyroads (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2018 (CET)

I would agree the A203 and P-V (what that?) are out of place, and the low detail grid should be significantly reduced and replaced for high quality / detail mapping which respects the topology. /wangi (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2018 (CET)

And no bridges over the lake! /wangi (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2018 (CET)

I agree on that. Dapen is located near the highest peaks of the Central Mountains and a city of such measures is simply too oversized. Also the street grid makes it look like a flat mid-west area without any topological barriers. Cheers, Bstn (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2018 (CET)


The freeway link on Lito, along with the massive bridge across the sea. /wangi (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2016 (CET)

  • I agree that this is egregious and excessive. I'd vote for removing all of the LN-4 from Ahalapu (junction with the LN-1). I also think that all of the bridge that connects the freeway to the Mount Lito needs to be removed too. Alessa (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (CET)

The island chain - Or keys are closely connected archipelago created due to shallow seas that allowed for the crossing of bridges much like the Florida keys which is why a standard highway was created to link the islands. This was never intended to be a motorway as the islands do not have that kind of traffic. Additionally it is not possible to connect the keys to Lito Island due to deeper waters and being close to 16 miles across. - These changes have been made to revert the highway back to the original intended design. --Indyroads (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2016 (CET)

Positive step to redo these bridges. Still can't see exactly why they're there, but better small. At some point, I'd like to realign these reefs and islands to make them more believable (i.e following rules of the real world, where reefs lie around submerged mountains, rather than as barrier reefs - a continental feature).--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016 (CET)

Regardless of how plausible these particular bridges may or may not be, we keep seeing new users trying to extend them, which is problematic. Plus the "oceanic archipelago linked by highway" is not exactly a common real-world pattern that we want to encourage new users to imitate in other locations. So I'd agree that we should replace these bridges with a ferry line, and that the reefs should be restructured to better fit a mid-ocean volcanic archipelago. --Isleño (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2017 (CEST)
  • I leave the vision up to you Isleño . But lets try this possible history. Originally seen as a volcanic chain of islands long dormant these islands have shown their wear and no longer have the sharp jagged peaks and volcanic shape to them with the exception of Lito Island which still has a volcanic crater and has been the most recently active volcano (dating back 10000 years scientifically) and theoretically could become active again. The area between the main islands is varying depth surrounding the keys. the sea depths are only 2-15 meters deep but closer to Lito they are much deeper 15-50 meters deep. far too deep and too wide of a connection to facilitate bridge crossings. I support the idea of downgrading the highway and removing dual bridges. Only one known highway system exists in the world that has long spans over open water linking islands in shallow water depths and that is the Florida Keys. This was the inspiration here but in a more tropical setting. Unfortunately some more younger and ambitious mappers get a little too map happy and try to make roads whereever they want rather than taking realism into account. If need be maybe removing the FURTHEST islands out from the road network would be appropriate. Perhaps removing the LN-5 bridge would help. Or remove them all together and use ferry links to link the islands. At any rate I would support whatever you collaboratively decide.--Indyroads (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2017 (CEST)
As they are currently mapped, these islands are not realistic, not just in terms of the bridges, but in terms of the geography. They seem most likely to be volcanic, formed around a volcanic hotspot. That means that slow movement of a tectonic plate led to their formation and they should range from recently formed (over the current hotspot - larger, less eroded) to older, and possibly to a remnant submarine chain of extinct peaks with outlying atolls. The waters between the islands are probably deep and not suited to barrier reef formation (or bridge building). A proposal to re-align/re-order the islands could look something like the sketches below. A substitute barrier reef of comparable area could be mapped on mainland Gobrassanya, probably on the south coast. For comparisons between OGF and real island chains see here.

File:Lonowai-option1.jpg or File:Lonowai-option2.jpg or... The alignment direction would depend on concept of which direction the plate is moving. The first option seems more plausible (perhaps with a slight rotation off the E-W axis), but the second fits better with the mapping of Onnutu, which is likely to be on the same oceanic plate.

--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (CEST)

I agree with Udi's assessment, and I really like the first option too. It's definitely very realistic from a geology and erosion perspective. The orientation of the second may fit Onnutu better, but it is much more likely that the oceanic plate is moving toward the Gobrass peninsula with its geology and not E–W. Because of this, I think option one needs an orientation change a little more toward NE–SW instead of the current E–W. That seems to make the most sense to me. — Alessa (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2017 (CEST)
Option 1, or a reorientation of it, makes sense to me too. /wangi (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2017 (CEST)
As much as I appreciate the effort here, I don't think there should be any major rearrangement of these islands. I do think the reefs look a bit odd for their location, and I've suggested to Indy that the south coast of Alora might be a great place for them. But changing the major islands would require altering numerous wiki maps, and for a layperson glancing at the geography here there's nothing obviously unrealistic that needs to be fixed. Geology isn't so clearcut. We don't know where the plates are, and there are almost limitless possibilities for where they might be. There could easily be a plate boundary, or multiple plate boundaries, between Lonowai and Onnutu. We don't know. We don't necessarily know that Lonowai was formed by a hotspot, either. Volcanic islands can be formed in numerous ways — one plate going underneath another, two plates diverging, one plate beginning to split or weaken, perhaps multiple hotspots appearing and disappearing... this could even be a tiny piece of continental crust leftover from some former landmass. We just don't know. And it's fine if we never know. We can easily say the islands were formed by some unknown process, and leave it at that... which would be so much easier than changing everything around, haha. :-) --Isleño (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2017 (CEST)
"Hotspot" volcanic island chains also do not always follow the Hawaiian pattern. Consider the example of Canary Islands: - the youngest island and most active volcano is the small one on the southwest.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2017 (CEST)
Firstly, I think we agree that these are 'hotspot volcanic islands', based on the mapping already done here. That means that possibilities are restricted; these are most likely shield volcanoes, in deep water. It would be a good decision to remove the outlying reefs to the mainland, for a start. The inconsistency in the mapping is that although this is a chain of islands, there isn't a logical reason for it to have developed the way it is mapped or a clear real world example to relate it to. I like Luciano's example of Canarias, Galapagos is another likely hotspot that isn't in a chain. Perhaps there are intermediate examples? The reason it looks jarring to me is because there seem to be older and younger islands apparently distributed in a chain, at random. I would go for re-aligning this as a chain, to reflect Hawaii. But something more like Canarias is also plausible. I'm afraid I don't agree with some of your other points Isleño: like it or not, previous mappers have made some decisions that now mean things don't tie together. Ok - get your point on the wiki maps - I think this is the same point you were making about drawing detailed transport maps before things are completed, but I don't think world geography is finalised yet either? The reason I focus on this is that it is a blue country. There are many other places around the world that are more inconsistent with reality, of course, but if there isn't a possibility of even making the collaborative places more realistic, how can we ever hope to get to a map of a world that approaches realism? --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2017 (CEST)
I don't want to get into a discussion about this, but OGF is never going to be realistic on any kind of 'deep' level. You're welcome to try for it within your own territories, but if 'deep realism' was one of this website's goals, then it would've been set up very differently from the very beginning. The "Be realistic" rule means that the map should generally 'feel' realistic to a casual observer; it does not mean that we're striving to construct a reality where everything actually makes sense. And with that in mind, a casual observer should see nothing jarring about the current shape of these islands. Maybe they were formed by a hotspot, or maybe more than one, or maybe no hotspots at all... there are any number of explanations. We don't know the answer, and we don't need to force one. There's nothing unrealistic here about saying "we don't understand the geology of this area" and moving on to other things. --Isleño (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2017 (CEST)
I get that, we don't need to understand exactly what's going on here. I just don't think the current configuration looks realistic even to a casual observer. Sorting out the bigger scale stuff before dealing with the detail like reefs around shield volcanoes and glaciers near the equator would be the logical approach - but yeah, there's not much logical about this site. I don't want to get into a discussion on this either - I'll leave it.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2017 (CEST)


Large beltway. /wangi (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2016 (CET)

  • I'm actually okay with this beltway under this condition: Remove the urban freeways and route the A7 and A50 around the city. It actually makes sense to me. On the south side, the current A50 should spur into the 25th/26th Street pairings; the entirety of the A7 inside the beltway should be removed east of the current A50 junction. On the north side, the A50 could be cancelled altogether. One could argue about upgrading Northrup Boulevard to a dual-carriage avenue, but that'd be it. That's just my opinion on what could be done. Alessa (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (CET)
  • The intention of the beltway is because Carratta is intended to be a much larger city than it is. Its a bit of forward planning on my part. I vote that it stays and developers develop the area in order to add to the city. --Indyroads (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2016 (CET)
    • That makes sense, but it still seems like a bit too much. I think my visual issues seem to be the A50 inside the beltway south of the city and the close paralleling proximity of A7 and A207 on the east side of the city. Perhaps one of these might work:

500px 500px

I cobbled them together in Paint, so I apologize for the crudeness. The yellow lines would be secondary upgrades; the orange would be primary upgrades. Red is of course the motorway changes. White lines are removals from the system. I personally prefer the second one, as it keeps much of the through routing. As before, I'd be happy to do the legwork on this given the complexity of the changes proposed. I kind of like this city. It's growing on me a bit. As a note, both options have the following: South of the city, keep the A50 east of 76 and connect to the beltway between Scenic Drive and the railway. The part of the A50 inside the beltway from A7 southward would downgraded to a boulevard to at most 15th/16th Avenue with the remainder deleted. A50 would then route around the city, with the remaining portion north of downtown being A250 or the like. Next, realign the Valkaria Highway to go directly to downtown (such as near 33rd and B) via Wattsville. That seems like a much more logical alignment of this road and allows us to extend W and X along their alignment to the beltway. — Alessa (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2017 (CEST)
  • Being the one that designed the beltway, I also think that the second proposed routings are more appropriate and would better reflect the ultimate actual realized growth patterns of the city and surrounding region. So I strongly campaign for that option, and agree with the statement regarding route continuity --Indyroads (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2017 (CEST)


  • I want to propose the idea of potentially merging the two districts into one larger district with Puerto Geo remaining as the district capital and retaining the name Arrowic or choosing a more culturally significant name for Southern Gobrassanya. Ideas? Also what about the idea of rerouting the southern section of A-50 to more directly route to Kenrich along the southern section of A-53 merging near the airport. --Indyroads (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2017 (CEST)
  • After considering it more Here Here is what I have done. I am reworking the street grid in Kenrich, it is badly needed. Also I propose that the city be renamed to something culturally or ethnically appropriate to the region that would sound similar. Maybe something like "Karesinda", "Kayin Rias", or "Kaisiriga", etc. Also I am not sure if the Irish place names fit in to the overall scheme of the rest of the region either.--Indyroads (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2017 (CEST)


The A53 freeway east of A707 to its northern junction at A55 on the north side of Valkaria.

  • Personally, I vote to remove the entirety of this stretch of freeway. I recommend rerouting the A53 onto the A707 to complete the connection to the A7. Alessa (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (CET)

So, like this?

Had a message from Indyroads also supporting this proposal; going to go ahead and do it. /wangi (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2016 (CET)

I agree that the A-53 monstrosity was unnecessary. also the use of extra long tunnels when a perfectly good motorway connection exists a few miles to the north didnt really make sense. Also it may be a good idea to rework the Captiva canyon area as well.--Indyroads (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2016 (CET)

I originally wanted the Grandview / Valkaria to be scenic and with a smalltown Feel. I have no problem with the A-53 being removed. User:Easky30 (talk)

Other freeway changes

I've been looking at a few other changes that I think should be made to Gobrassanya's freeway network. These are more related to intercity freeway routes:

  • A3 between its junction with A70 and the Gobras City metro area doesn't seem necessary at all. It should be downgraded to a divided highway with at-grade intersections or a 2+1 road (2 lane road with a passing lane alternating between directions). A3 should be re-routed to run along the north side of the Artana Bay, meeting up with A1 around here. Old A3 could probably be re-numbered Highway 24, and the current Hwy 24 be re-numbered to some other route number.
  • Northwest of Gobras City, A2 should be re-routed to run along the former route of A65 which has since been downgraded to a primary road. It should branch off of its current route right around here and run northwest to the end of the A65 freeway. Not only would this be a straighter, more direct route between Gobras City and the Havreg metro area, but it would also allow a connection to A65, allowing it along with A202 to serve as a complete beltway around Gobras City.

Thoughts? -Compdude (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2016 (CET)

For the A 3 I think it's realistic to have something from Gobras City some way round the peninsula, perhaps to Sumunta. At the Artana end i think the bridge is overkill. For most of the route a normal highway.
I think the coast is the natural place for the A2 & main motorway north out of Gobras City. Picture the flat coastal plain as pretty much fully developed from Gobras City up to Havreg. Where the 65 is would be foothills. /wangi (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2016 (CET)
Yeah, for the A3 I agree with it being a freeway to Sumunta. And now I understand your reasoning about the route of A2. I am going to go ahead and re-route A 65 along the 465 corridor (currently shown as an under-construction road on the map). —Compdude (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2017 (CET)
It seems the A3 NE of Gobras City is still in place. Given the small town nature of Noian, Austeria, etc. I imagine the entirety of the A3 could be deleted east of Samunta (here or even here), including removing the expensive bridge which could be downgraded to a ferry at Nisipurile (expensive infrastructure like this is appropriate for the direct route to Gobras City from another major city, of which Laguna already has several.) The minor roads already in place should be enough and there appear to be good rail links to Gobras City and other interior points. Dono87 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2017 (CEST)
I completely agree with the motorway ending at Sumunta—specifically the west side of the city. Bypassing it through the mountains would be expensive, and there's really no destination beyond it warranting the road. I also agree with Dono about removing the bridge across the bay. That's expensive infrastructure and won't really warrant the traffic. I vote to redirect the A3 over the A70 to A1. — Alessa (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2017 (CEST)
Someone re-added a freeway along the former A3 corridor. Also, they re-added the bridge across the bay. I think I'll remove it soon when I get the chance. If someone else removes it, it might be worth linking to this discussion in the changeset/edit description. —Compdude (talk) 06:52, 28 August 2017 (CEST)

Northwest Gobrassanya (Volantia, Gallitania, and Arcois)

First, how populated is this part of the country? It seems a bit far afield and has some difficult terrain. I can't imagine a network like what we see here. Halveman is small and not going to be too big when all is said and done. Colquitam isn't that large either. Mougnon isn't likely to be a huge metropolis. Queensboro and Gautig are probably going to be the biggest cities in this part of the country. I also know that Alora has to be taken into account, since international traffic between the two countries matters. Okay, given all this, here are some thoughts:

  • Eliminate the A7 between Colquitam and Halveman. The cities aren't large enough to warrant a direct motorway connection, and the terrain is terrible for a motorway. Maybe 98 can have some improved areas with trunk classification. I know that long-range travel to Halveman–Kaluga–Palm Beach might be seen as an issue, but this isn't the most densely populated metropolitan corridor around. The A110 bypass of Mougnon helps with this anyway. Plus, traffic going from the Grand Lake area to Santa Carlina could use the A17 to Mougnon and work over to the E3 in Alora. This would probably be the better routing anyway. To keep the A7 continuous, route it to replace the A17.
    • I don't see the issue with A-7 or A-17. A-7 predates A-17 and is a simple 4 lane dual carriageway traveling through a low alpine mountain range and would not have been prohibitively expensve to construct and not costly to maintain. Traffic counts would admittedly be low on both roads but no need to remove either if they are already constructed. Additionally A-7 is part of the "international route E-7/A 7" which travels from Marapura District to Avalon in Alora, so keeping the route would preserve this continuity.--Indyroads (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2017 (CEST)
  • I'd like to have the community entertain the idea of extending the Drew River Delta NR even further south to include more of northeastern Delta County. This is a potentially beautiful preserve area in an otherwise overdeveloped country. Maybe part of Somatis County, with its detailed coastline could be included too. Perhaps as far south as here? I bring it up, because I think having such a large preserve also means that the area around it is going to be more rural. This means the A1 could be rerouted a bit.
  • Gautig and Queensboro are the two largest cities up here and are probably decent population centers. Why is there no motorway connection? Perhaps we can reroute the A1 to give an indirect connection. I propose tweaking the A1 alignment near Parma to turn more southeast and eventually replace the A20 to about the "Easton Town Center" or GA-104 interchange. It probably should also drift a little more eastward toward the sketched airport along the way. From there, the new A1 would drift eastward in proximity to the county lines until it reaches the existing A2. It would then replace the A2 until the existing junction with the A1 on the east side of Gautig. Basically, the existing A1 would be relocated about 10–15km further south, replacing part of A2 and A20 along the way. It gives Queensboro a connection to Gautig that is only 9km or so fro the city center and doesn't add a needless amount excess distance along a key motorway between Gautig and Malinton. It also allows for the Drew River area to be more rural and better preserved.
  • I think the network in Gautig is too much in general. Even if the aforementioned point doesn't work, I would like to see this simplified. I would prefer to see the A1 routed around the city along the A2, even if it is only to Howarth Road. If users don't like my proposed reroute of A1 above, then we can reconnect the highway by having split from the A2 at Howarth Road and go northwestward to reconnect. Given that this is a major coastal motorway and likely a major trucking route, tunnels don't work through the city like this. I propose removing all parts of the A1 from the Loop 220 (northwest side) to the junction with the A2 at the Arcois River. The A30 could end by spilling into Market/Exchange Streets. The interchange between the A30 and A2 is more than sufficient to provide direct downtown access to people coming from the east side of the city. (A 1.5km displacement at most!) We could probably stand to realign the bridge over the Arcois River a bit too, so that it is directed a bit more west-southwestward to make the A1/A2 alignment smoother.

Let me all know what you think. I'd be happy to do the legwork on this, if needed or desired. — Alessa (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2017 (CEST)

I think it would be interesting to come up with a view on how large these cities are, still the great unknown of Gobrassanya. I assume the A2 was at some point downgraded as overkill, but I agree that Gobrassanya's infrastructure planners would try to build as direct as possible a route between two cities like Queensboro and Gautig (without making the detour excessive for travel on to Alora). That said, Gautig still looks like it has several hundred thousand people, plus Somatis County would surely have a yet-to-be-mapped population center around here. I would suggest leaving some sort of motorway along the coast NW of Gautig to a city or town in Somatis that dumps traffic onto local streets at Wiesbaden Village/Western Boulevard in DT Gautig – even if it is discontinuous with the realigned A1/A2 to Parma & Alora. The Loop 220 could perhaps stand to be upgraded to a full motorway, and I agree that extensive downtown tunneling is not appropriate for smaller cities like Gautig. Dono87 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2017 (CEST)

I think I agree with all your points; i definitely do not disagree. Especially regrading the Drew River Delta NR - I created that after some editors wanted to slap a city there! /wangi (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2017 (CEST)

Thanks for the feedback Wangi and Dono87. I like the idea of upgrading the Loop200 to connect toward 10 and the coast northwest of Gautig into Hinira County. (I think that's what was meant above given the link to a potential city site.) I strongly disagree with a full motorway that goes along the northwest coast too far, so that location in Hinira County is plenty far enough. I can easily put that in, but I won't take it any further. — Alessa (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2017 (CEST)
I've extended the NR: //wangi (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2017 (CEST)
Great! I did the realigning of A1 and Gautig cleanup, but apparently there was a massive edit conflict. I'll just let you do it and come back later if helps is desired. Cheers, — Alessa (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2017 (CEST)
I guess I was mistaken. I was able to resolve the conflict on the couple of nodes and finish the work on the first part. Any objections to the A7 removal and realignment along the A17? Should that road continue to be tolled? — Alessa (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2017 (CEST)

Nuclear Testing Zone

Is everyone cool with the Nuke testing Site? (

Loading map...

  • If I might ask, what is the purpose of the site? Is Gobrassanya really a nation that wants to become a nuclear power? Is it in an arms race? Is the designated area (which isn't large enough anyway) an international testing site? Given the sentiments of many users on the wiki, and therefore the Assembly of Nations, would nuclear weaponry really be something that countries would actively seek? Alessa (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (CET)
    • Well here is the thing. Its more of a for show facility not acctually testing Nukes. Its to make Gobrassanay seem like a more modern Nation. Today most if not all 1st world nation have nuclear arsenals (Unsigned by User:Mapking at 01:26, 22 December 2016 (CET))
      • I don't know what you mean about a 'for-show facility.' Either it is a nuclear test site or not. If it is, then that changes some international dynamics. I should say that I'm neither for nor against it. I'm only mentioning that something like nuclear weapons is an international game-changer. I agree that many RW first-world countries have nuclear weapons, but that was born out of the WWII arms race. As of now, we don't really have something in the OGF universe that would have precipitated such an event. Even more importantly, why would Gobrassanya? I could see a country like Commonia having attempted to develop nuclear weapons. I just don't know how it fits. Again, I'm neither for it nor against it. The testing site seems to stick out and not seem like it belongs in the culture of that country. Alessa (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2016 (CET)

I think it's fine for Gobrassanya to have, or had in the past, nuclear weapons. In much the same way as the UK or France. But i don't have really strong opinion either way. It wouldn't be for show, as some sort of Banana Republic, though. I think consensus is that Gobrassanya is a top-tier developed country. I do not agree with the artificial island & undersized air base. /wangi (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2016 (CET)

I agree with wangi. I think Grobrassanya should have nuclear weapons, like he explains. I don't know whether the current place is okay or not Niels20020 (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2016 (CET)
I think that Gobrassanya should have a nuclear testing site. The point I would like to criticize is the distance to the next habitated island. The next city is ca. 50 km away and it would be a bit careless to test bombs near your own population. /Bstn (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2016 (CET)
I disagree. Gobrassanya is only the size of Pennsylvania, it has good relations with both neighbors, and it has no obvious enemies for now. Let's only add nukes if there's a good reason to do so. Besides, they've already spent 120% of their budget on motorways.--Isleño (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2016 (CET)
I agree with Isleño. Sure, you could have Gobrassanya as a nuclear power, but that makes for a rather complicated balancing act in international relations, with Gobrassanya being something more like Israel than UK, France or US? If you want to map a testing site, maybe find a remote atoll somewhere.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2016
I agree with Isleno and you all, but it does seem like Israel might not be the best comparison just because Gobrassanya doesn't seem to be related to any conflicts or anything, is for the most part highly esteemed worldwide, and no one questions Gobrassanya's statehood ;P Maybe more of a large Switzerland? XD --Ernestpcosby (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2017 (CEST)

All right. I feel like the curent location is good but I understand about the Airbase. The Nuke site isn't for testing nukes persay, but WAS used to test nukes. the Testing site is a relic from the testing. And the historical reson is teh tension with Khawoon in the past.

As the coordinator of Khaiwoon, I'd object to that. Gobrassanya and Khaiwoon have experienced tensions in the past, but nothing that would cause Gobrassanya to develop nuclear weapons. Khaiwoon is a tiny city-state with just a few million people and has never posed a threat to its much larger neighbor. For now my suggestion would be to remove any reference to nukes and just call the area a "Military Testing Site" or something. --Isleño (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2016 (CET)
Gobrassanya Naval Ordnance Testing Area would leave enough wiggle room. /wangi (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2016 (CET)


opions on Gobrassanya AreoSpace Administration? - Mapking

I removed it because it just didn't fit near the suburbs. It would be dangerous for inhabitants, e.g. if the rockets explode or pieces of the rocket crash down to earth. A near-coast solution would be better and we firstly should discuss if Gobrassanya really has the money to operate a launchpad for rockets. The government already spends every dime they have on highways. ;)
Bstn (talk) 20:07, May 6, 2017 (CEST)


Hey guys, I have been thinking about consolidating long-distance rail travel in Gobrassanya recently. I made a tentative map of all passenger rail lines in the entire country, which you can see on the corresponding wiki page. What do you think of the rail lines and the stations they serve? Are there are stations/lines you would like to see on the map, or would recommend taking off? Which lines/destinations should have more services, and which ones should have less?

In the future, I would like to make a map of all the individual services, similar the following. Since this map will be much more detailed, I'd like some input from the community first.

Looking forward to your suggestions. Thanks. --Quadratic64 (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2017 (CEST)

Thanks for taking the initiative. My immediate though was there was too much HSR? I feel this would be better limited to:
  • HSR1: (branch from Ontaro) - Gobras City - K'loon
  • HSR2: (branch from Quesagnais) - Kenrich - Marapura (- connect to K'loon)
  • HSR3: an in construction route, linking HSR1 at Gobras City with HSR2 at Kenrich - would be an expensive construction.
There would then be an intercity netowrk represnting much of what you have as HSR. I think it would make sense to map those routes as relations first, before completing the route map.
In the Gobras City area should try to get Pohalashee Grand and Fort Anah in, if possible. Thanks/wangi (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2017 (CEST)
@Quadratic64: The map is great, but Gobrassanya is such a chaotic, changing, evolving country, that personally I would not recommend spending time on additional maps. They'll either become obsolete or they'll need regular updating. If that's fine with you, feel free to go ahead... but I'm sure you can make an equally good map for a private territory, and you wouldn't need to deal with any blue country mayhem. --Isleño (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2017 (CEST)

Gobrassanya Discord

I'd like to invite you all to my Gobrassanya Discord: [1]

Discussion of Midistland and Mecyna is also welcome. Bootmii (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2017 (CEST)

Doesn't work --Tito zz (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2017 (CET)


I'm thinking about mapping a very large shipbuilding facility in Gobrassanya. That is, on the scale of Hyundai's Mipo Dockyard at Ulsan, South Korea. I'm thinking the north side of Artana Bay. For comparison see:

Any thoughts on the location, is there a more appropriate one - Gobras City, Havreg?

Welcome any feedback, collaboration. Thanks/wangi (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2017 (CEST)

Copying content

Imports from OSM... ?

/wangi (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2018 (CET)

It really likes like an exact copy. Have you contacted the mapper?--Happy mapping and God bleses you, ZK (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2018 (CEST)

Since it is so obviously a copy should it be removed from the map for violating the terms of OFG?--Indyroads (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2018 (CEST)

I've zapped it. One runway left /wangi (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2018 (CEST)

Removing airports.

As you can see at here,[2], the Gobras City Metropolitan Area has too many airports. I think that for now, every airport in the National Capital District should be removed. But we shouldn't downright remove them. We should do something with the airports, like London did. For example in Obenaai Field Regional Airport, we give what is south of the runway to the Obenaai Centre, and turn the runway into a big parking. The buildings north of it could be given to the University (which is unrealistic that it is next to the airport anyway), and the rest can be filled with new city. --Tito zz (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2019 (CEST)

It's not that bad really. Compare London. The WorldPort is really the only major commercial airport. Having Obenaai Field has a small, budget focused, airport makes sense. A couple military ones make sense, and a couple general aviation make sense. The only one i have a real problem with is Triangle Regional - it is on the same alignment and far too close to West Meadows. /wangi (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2019 (CEST)
Greater Gobras City, with satellite cities in Harley and Yantia, looks like it has a few more airports for scheduled passenger service than required, depending on population. I wasn't necessarily on board when Margenson Airport was created (too close to Ominoso), but if the Gobras conurbation has 10-15 million people, then 3 airports at Worldport, Ominoso and Margenson could make sense. Triangle and Cavanhurst definitely shouldn't have passenger service, but perhaps the latter could be retained as a general service airport or converted to a military air force base only. Obennai makes more sense to me as an airfield for private planes, although if I were designing the ideal 3rd airport for the area (after Worldport and Ominoso), it would have been east of the city, perhaps directly on the GoHSR mainline close to the Xavier Anah Beltway, not on the spur to Margenson.
While we're at it, Fallsington International should also be scaled down to a general service airport and moved closer to its namesake city and Havreg International could stand to lose 2 or 3 runways.Dono87 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2019 (CEST)


moved to [[Talk:OGF:Gobrassanya/Railways#High-speed railway routes]]

Palms in snow

Dear fellow mappers,

I want to express my concerns about the development of the town "Palms in snow" on the Tasmal peninsula (north-east of Gobras City). User cartograf seems to be actively developing this place for a while now, but the problem is that it's highly unrealistic. This very small town has several tram lines, an international airport, an international harbor with long distance ferries, border controls, a dedicated highway not following terrain, several rail lines of which some are that terrain non-conforming they are a real eye-sore, etc., and developments are probably going to continue in the future if no one else takes action.

I think the best possible future for this town is to drastically downscale infrastructure and making it like a historical fortified town, but in this case most of cartograf's work will be lost. And that's something I don't know how to deal with. Is it OK for another normal user to simply delete most of one's work and alter the rest significantly? Because I guess then it's his word against mine, and the other user will probably not be very happy with that action, and might not want to agree on that if he were to be contacted beforehand. Is it maybe an option to move the entire town and nearby infrastructure to another place like Commonia, where the quality of the map and editors is generally way lower than in Gobrassanya? So please leave some input on how to deal with this specific situation, and also with these kinds of situations in general, because I don't want to do be harsh and simply delete everything but something has to be done. Thanks in advance. Squizie3 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2019 (CEST)

First thing to do is to point them toward this post, if you haven't already. /wangi (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2019 (CEST)

Transferring the Potanagree River Valley from Harley District to Yantia District

File:Potanagree River.png

Can we transfer the portion of the Potanagree River (blue) valley in Harley District (black) to Yantia District to the east? I think the river valley would have been a continuous string of settlements from Lenox up the river valley before there was a good way to travel over the mountains. Thus, I think it makes more sense for the Potanagree River valley to be part of Yantia from source to mouth instead of currently divided between Harley (black) and Yantia. Chazeltine (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2020 (CEST)

A 20 Toll Road


After some offline discussion with Gobrassanya community mappers, we are converting A20 to a toll road between exit 87 in the south and A320 in the north (highlighted section). An A20 toll road is appropriate as commuters have free access to A2 along the coast, and because the GoHSR provides an alternate means of public transit along A20 for the length of the toll road. Chazeltine (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2020 (CEST)

I support this, it adds some extra interesting details to the map. Squizie3 (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2020 (CEST)