Forum:Federal States/De-listing National Park Facilities

Forums → Federal States → 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.

Perhaps 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)

I'd like to say it's probably precedent to reopen this conversation if we can. Recent conversations I've had with other members have made me aware that some are not aware that the National Parks function are not for "canonising" historical sites, but are meant to be a showcase of the best mapping in the Federal States. That leads me to believe this discussion has become precedent again in the rare case that, like my experience in submitting Chardelay Town originally, that a state-owner who submits a site for entry based on "canonising" historical fact who had succeeded would come across the same issue as I if they wish to redo their mapping to improved capability.

Further, we probably need a discussion around strengthening the messaging around the actual purpose of National Parks being the display of exemplary mapping and not around "canonising" history. It feels to be that without a proper understanding, a surface level understanding from the name "National Park" states that this is implemented for canonising history. I'd suggest changing the name from "National Park" to something akin to what the UK use to have as "Area of Outstanding (Natural) Beauty" as at least that indicates aesthetic over importance in initial contextual understanding. --Aces California (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for ensuring this stays on the community's radar, Aces. As stated when we chatted, I feel like the primary complaint you rightly raise is the permanence of the site once it is nominated and voted on. Those of us who like to tinker eschew participation in the "national site" system for this reason. As our standards continue to get higher, as we get better at mapping and continue to mature as a project, there needs to be a way to reassess mapping and allow for revisions that might be more disruptive. A permanent site that cannot be touched runs afoul with the desire to constantly bring things up to our higher standards.

This might be more complicated, but here is my preliminary suggestion of how we could solve this (and I'm open to further suggestions). I would propose that any site that is in the "national site" system can be de-listed at territory-owner request if the current territory-owner is the original mapper and the FSA-community approves with a >50% vote. But, to ensure a quorum, it probably will need to be restricted to the omnibus ballot. If a territory-owner would like to delist the site but is not the original mapper, then it may only be done more than 2 years after taking ownership of the territory, with approval of the original mapper (if active within the last six months), regional admin approval, and with >50% FSA-community vote. The reason for the distinction between original territory-owner and subsequent territory-owner is that anyone applying for a state must be willing and work to accommodate national sites within them upon getting ownership. If someone really cannot handle it after two years and needs to get it delisted, then it should not be an easy process but still possible.

I also would suggest that any delisting means that the site cannot be renominated for a "national site" for one year from delisting and must be substantially different than before, with screenshots to validate the amount of increased quality. Again, I think it should not be easy.

This would be my current working proposal for how these should be handled based on the spirit of the existing structure. It is definitely not a preferred option, but we have so few nominations that I do not foresee a rash of delistings coming our way. — Alessa _(talk) 21:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The national parks are 'canonised' in the sense that they are 'national' sites that the community has agreed have the quality to be national, the prestige of the national label is important. If they are just exemplary mapping (there's a lot of great mapping in the FSA) then they can stay as state parks or monuments. It's obvious from the current wording that mappers submit their mapping voluntarily and, if voted in, the areas cannot be touched except to add detail. I don't think anyone could genuinely claim to be unaware of the protected status of the national parks. As such they are defacto canon and I don't agree they should be allowed to delist.

That said, my concerns about delisting really only revolve around potential loss of nationally important mapping. I don't want to see anyone prevented from improving their mapping, even if they means some radical changes. So I would support a version of Aces suggested delisting process where the site isn't actually delisted at all but there could be an 'update process'. The current mapping would be kept untouched and in place until the new mapping is ready (it could be made elsewhere and moved in when ready). The new mapping could then go to an omnibus vote and at that stage, replace the older (presumably inferior or less appropriately placed) version. Whatever process is agreed we need to avoid the possibility of a mapper delisting, then deleting or destroying a site and failing to make good on their commitment to redo to the same level of detail and quality. Let's be honest it's easy to say the mapping will be replaced by something better but then life gets in the way. Ruadh (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

From my discussions with Alessa in the Discord, I can see I've somewhat located a problem but identified it wrong, as my original comment of today was wrongly focused on the perception that "people don't focus enough on making their site's exemplary examples of mapping." rather than "quality of mapping evolves over time, both in mapper capability and the individual perception of detailed mapping held by others, and a strict-permanence doesn't allow for sites to follow with other's evolving capabilities."

I would state Ruadh, that you state that "I don't think anyone could genuinely claim to be unaware of the protected status of the national parks." but this discussion that I brought up was primarily spurred by two users on the Discord stating they didn't know that sites were that strictly protected when they submitted their applications (or had planned to). And while I don't know what exactly that says about how the current page is worded, it's enough of a pattern to acknowledge that there may be something to look at regarding how it's worded.

My personal belief is that while reform is possible within the entire system, it may not be entirely required as long as people who are submitting their nominations know and understand that the primary purpose of being nominated a National Park is to demonstrate exemplary examples of that sort of mapping. Within the National Parks page there is a section that states "To avoid failed nominations, mappers are strongly encouraged to use the FSA forums to get feedback from the FSA community on proposed sites before nominating them..." I feel like if this was emphasised, and added to with some single, nebulous, non-committal, and interpretive statement the likes of "Look at what you are nominating, and if your answer to the question is 'Is there anything I can do to make this better' is Yes, it is not ready for submission." it would be enough for the current moment, potentially coupled with a removal of the strict permeance of sites, and we can save deeper discussion of complete reform with Alessa's suggested de-listing mechanic, potentially not even required if the loosening of the permeance is allowed. The fact that those state-owners I mentioned previously had brought their planned nominations for National Parks to Discord to discuss, leading to myself suggesting they all needed a lot more work put into them, shows that community input before even nominations are made is happening, I just feel like this aspect needs to be emphasised harder and clearer on the wiki article (or in another way dealt with e.g. by loosening permeance) as the primary response to this. --Aces California (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the National Parks page clearly states:

The National Park System of the Federal States exists to showcase not only important or unique areas of the Federal States, but also to honor high-quality mapping contributions by members of the FSA community. [emphasis added]

If enough members of the FSA project feel that language is ambiguous, it can be changed, but I feel that the purpose of the National Park System has officially been pretty clearly enumerated on the official National Parks page for quite a long time at this point.

All that said, here are some clarifications and reform concepts for the National Park System that I believe I would support:

Mappers who submit a site that is approved by the community to become part of the National Park System can continue to add further detail to the site, provided the site as approved is not relocated or otherwise altered, other than adding additional detail. For the purposes of this clarification, "adding detail" means a net increase in nodes, ways, and/or relations without removing any features that were largely apparent at the time of approval.
Once approved, National Park System areas will remain part of the National Park System in perpetuity so long as the initial mapper remains the stateowner of said site and does not request delisting.
If a previously-approved site has been maintained continuously by the same owner who mapped the approved site, the mapper can request that a site be delisted at any time. If the site was approved to enter the National Park System within the past two years, a simple community majority vote in the next omnibus vote is required for delisting; if the community approval was more than two years ago, delisting can only be done by written request to the FSA Coordinator or the continental admin.
Once delisted, a site can be moved, relocated, substantially altered, or deleted.
A stateowner who requests delisting is not eligible to be re-nominate any portion of a delisted site for the FSA National Park System for two years following delisting.
In the event of a territory vacancy or other ownership change, a new stateowner can request delisting of any National Park System site in their new state. Regardless of recency of community approval, all delistings subsequent to this section require a majority vote of the community in the immediate next omnibus vote. If delisting fails, the new stateowner must maintain the approved site in its existing location per the existing rules of the National Park System. If delisting is approved, the site must be offered to other stateowners before deletion.
Delisted sites (in whole or in part) that are relocated to other states are eligible for renomination to the National Park System on the immediate next omnibus ballot.
National Park System sites in vacant territories that have not been approved by the community within the past five years must receive a majority vote in the immediate next omnibus ballot to remain in the National Park System. If delisting is not approved by the community, Rule #6 would still apply once the state is assigned to its next owner.

TL;DR above:

You can keep adding more mapping and more detail to a National Park System site so long as the site isn't substantially changed. (If it looks the same at zoom 16 or so as it did when it was approved, it's probably fine.)
If you map a site that's admitted to the National Park System by the FSA community, that site will remain in the National Park System as long as you continuously own your state.
If you mapped a National Park System site, remain in good standing in the FSA, and wish to have your site delisted so you can do something more dramatic with it, ask the community for approval within two years. Beyond two years, delisting can only be done with FSA Coordinator/admin approval.
Once it's delisted, there are no protections, and you can do what you like with the site.
If you do get a site delisted, there's a two-year "cooling off" period before any part of the site can be renominated for the National Park System.
If a state turns over, the new stateowner can ask to have any National Park System site in their state to be delisted. However, delisting during state turnover requires FSA community approval. If the community approves, the mapping must be offered to other stateowners for relocation before it can be deleted.
If someone does relocate or repurpose former National Park System mapping pursuant to #6, Rule #5 does not apply (they can renominate the relocated site as soon as the next omnibus).
Old National Park System mapping in vacant territories can be delisted by community vote. Relocation pursuant to rules #6 and #7 above would apply if successfully delisted. If a vacant site is not delisted, Rule #6 would still apply once the state gets a new owner.

I believe this is a good balance of the issues previously raised, but as always I am interested in the thoughts of the community. --TheMayor (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The wording could of course be updated (it could probably be rationalised and reorganised a little) but the fact that 2 mappers failed to read (or claim to have misunderstood) the guidance correctly isn't necessarily indicative of a problem with the language. How does anyone read this and not get it? "Once National Park status has been approved, these sites are to be protected as-is regardless of current or future state ownership: the mapped features of the National Park shall not be changed (except to add additional detail) and the boundaries of the approved site shall not change. " Sorry but I call bullshit.

As to the delist process, I honestly feel if the sites can be delisted there is no point having them. If they can be delisted on the say so of the state mapper then they aren't national, they're state level entities. Ruadh (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree fully with Ruadh about the existing wording and its clarity. Although we can always stand to make it better, it should be known and clear as it stands now. Where I slightly disagree with Ruadh, is that I think sites having the ability to be delisted does not negate the point of having them. I simply think there needs to be a pressure-release valve that gives a user an option to withdraw, but that option should not be easy or wanton. It should be a difficult process, and the "penalty" is the difficulty it takes to get it back in the system. Pursuant to that, I disagree with Mayor's suggestion of allotting such ease for a new state-owner to delist a site. I think a new state owner should be forced to contend with it for a time, as we do with other extant mapping when an application is made. I don't think it should be exceptionally easy for a new owner. — Alessa _(talk) 19:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I am overall unsure about delisting, but can see Aces desire. I, too, think it should be difficult to delist a national park. I support Alessa's ideas. I think a vote should be required by the community and relisting should be essentially impossible. In regards to subsequent territory owners seeking delisting, I would suggest to require a >75% vote in order to assist with keeping some semblance of permanence. Glauber (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

See Collab:Federal States/National Parks#Withdrawal: "National Park status is intended to be a long-term permanent status. Mapping is "locked in" and should not be reworked. If delisting, or reworking, is desired then the mapper should make a request on the talk page. A reason should be given and the request will then be considered by the FSA project admins"

This has been added following the discussion above. It's a way to request delisting, which is open to admin oversight. Thanks/wangi (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)