Forum:Federal States/De-listing National Park Facilities
Hello, everyone. Since the topic has come up a couple times now and with a request recently, we wanted to open a discussion about how best to proceed with removal of mapping from the national park status listing. Because the mapping involved requires collective approval to be an official facility in the national listing, there is hesitation to allow for removal without any type of review or vote. There are two primary reasons why a mapper may want to de-list national-park mapping. First, the area might be vastly reworked and require changes to the listed area that go beyond what is allowed. Second, the mapping is desired to be removed in some way either by transfer to another territory or outright deleted.
Per policy, mapping that is part of the national-park listing is required to remain in place, in tact, and in the territory that it was placed. Effectively, it is a contribution to the national lore and not solely the property of the state-owner anymore. That said, there are legitimate reasons to allow for de-listing, such as to rework the area or to update the mapping to better fit an area. De-listing to transfer out of the FSA or delete outright is not what is up for discussion here. We do not want users to be hamstrung into something of complete permanence while also respecting the elevated status that was granted. Again, things added to the national-park listing are contributions to the greater FSA and not just viewed as part of the state.
A potential solution might be to allow for de-listing in the event there is a pressing reason for it and the user is remaining in the FSA, but it would require a >50% vote by the FSA user base. Since it is a national contribution and required national approval, it should probably require approval to remove.
Are there other suggestions for how we should proceed with voluntary de-listing? We will open this for a bit and hold a vote in conjunction with the upcoming August omnibus ballot if there is a procedure that seems viable.
— Alessa (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- As the member who had submitted the request to remove my National Park entry, I'd be best explaining what I expected for the expectations to have been, I imagine that'd be something that would factor into the conversation. I'd expected that any questions that hung around the methodology of De-listing and Re-listing would surround the Re-listing aspect. The park would be de-listed, and for me to reapply with a newly remapped version of it, I'd need to go through the usual application process maybe with additional requirements. I'd have not expected questions surrounding de-listing, however wishing to retain the national importance lore-wise of an entry does make sense.
- Perhapse for the movement of Parks from one location to another would require the prior suggested concensus vote of the FSA user base, but for re-mapping of a location ask to have the location already mapped out to it's full extent before submitting that as a replacement while the current Park is still in existence as well? Treat it in a similar way to an Annex vote? --Aces California (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)