Forum:Federal States/Motorway Numbering Restructuring

Forums → Federal States → Federal States/Motorway Numbering Restructuring

As the project has grown and matured significantly since the initial motorway numbering system was first implemented about five years ago, and based on conversations with several stateowners, I would like to propose the following modest reforms to the motorway network:

Designating certain routes as "primary" or "secondary" should be depreciated and removed from the master list. These terms seem to be confusing and creates an unnecessary "hierarchy" of routes that may or may not actually be more important than others. Instead, routes that end in "0" or "1" would only be referred to as "grid" routes that guide and frame the larger overall numbering scheme.
While maintaining the overall numbering scheme, more tolerance for "crossing" routes should be added to the system. "Parallel" routes would be permitted to cross each other provided they do not cross through more than one "grid" (X0/X1) motorway. For instance, FS-16 could cross both FS-14 and FS-20 provided it did not also cross FS-10 or FS-30.
Single-digit route numbers would be reserved for major "diagonal" routes that would otherwise violate Reform #2. This would include existing FS-1, FS-2, and FS-3. Any single-digit route can run in any direction and is not restricted to the odd/even rules of the rest of the network.
To satisfy Reform #3, current FS-5 and FS-8 would be renumbered. Detailing how these routes would be renumbered would be up to the Southeast and the West Lakes regions, respectively.
To open up more motorway numbering options in the Southeast, FS-30 would be re-routed east of Madawan, replacing FS-22 to Stanton. The existing FS-30 segment between Madawan and Anne Abbey would become an extension of FS-40.

I believe these reforms are relatively modest and do not require an official vote to implement, but I also have no interest in enacting them unilaterally either. Accordingly, if there are any questions or concerns, please post them here~~; however, if there are no objections within the next two weeks (by 10 Sep 2025), these changes will become official.~~ (Please post any official objections in the appropriate section below; otherwise, please use the "Discussion" section.) --TheMayor (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Since there was an official objection, we'll determine appropriate next steps following the close of the official votes ongoing elsewhere in this forum. In the meantime, additional discussion is encouraged. --TheMayor (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I think we could still keep certain routes as "primary" or "secondary". While they don't need to be strict and be only X0 and X1 routes (as well as be all X0 and X1 routes), I do think some hierarchy of the motorways is important. Obviously routes such as FS-30 and FS-91 are going to be more important that routes such as FS-28 and FS-5. I think the labels should be kept, but be allowed to be looser (including routes such as FS-55 and current FS-22 while excluding routes such as FS-51 and FS-60).

Regarding crossing, I agree. I don't think it should turn into things like I-99 in Pennsylvania or I-74 in North Carolina, but with any road network, there is bound to be some misalignments.

However, I'm not as enthusiastic about the diagonals. I think reserving FS-4 and FS-5 for diagonals would work, but I can't see a scenario where we would need 9 reserved numbers for diagonals. Even some diagonals today already spend a great deal of their routing concurrent with other roads (specifically FS-50 between Minneuka and Williamsburg is wholly concurrent with FS-1 or FS-2). I worry that reserving too many numbers for diagonals creates the scenario where we have multiple diagonals for short distances, when those could be served by an auxiliary 3-digit route or an unused 2-digit route.

As someone who would be affected by the renumbering in the southeast, I am for this. At the greatest extent between FS-22 and FS-20 (Wasserstadt and Grundy), there is quite a bit of space. Not necessarily that it will be populated, but renumbering FS-22 east of Madawan would allow there to be some breathing room between FS-20 and current FS-22.

I would like to propose FS-22 be used for an alternate route through the mountains to FS-30, potentially running from Waltmore, NC or Yallop, NC to Sorensby, PS or Onawanda, PS, serving almost as an I-68 to I-70 in Maryland, USA.

PoisonDog522 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the "importance" of individual route numbers will be self-evident on the map and do not need to be officially enumerated as such in the official table of routes. As you mentioned, it's already pretty clear that FS-55 and FS-22 are important routes that make crucial connections.

I disagree that there are only five or fewer feasible nationwide diagonal routes today, and furthermore I think we should have a system that's adaptable in case more of those routings become apparent later on. The Northeast, for instance, still has some uncertainty in terms of development patterns and major cities; Cosperica is of course almost entirely an unknown at this point. Keeping our options open for the future I think is important, or else we run the risk of more "adjustments" or a larger restructuring later on.

FS-50 does not go to Minneuka, so it's obviously not entirely concurrent; FS-50 is concurrent with FS-2 between Reeseport and Massodeya City (through East Massodeya, another zone of uncertainty), and concurrent with FS-1 between Massodeya City and Williamsburg, through a mountainous pass and into the Northeast, which again has many vacancies and an unsettled regional vision. I believe there's a future where FS-50 does not go east of Reeseport at all due to the concurrencies with FS-1 and FS-2, and depending on what happens with the Northeast, but again, my preference is to keep things as open-ended as possible so the system can adapt once the gaps in the map get further filled in. --TheMayor (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

My response to your comments:

With regards to removing the enumeration of importance, that makes sense. I can see how the important would probably be obvious when looking on the map itself and specifying which routes are important may cause some confusion, especially with prospective state-owners in the FSA.

The only thing with renumbering FS-8 that I see as a worry is that FS-10 has a great deal of land to the south of it: almost all of Makaska, all of Venary, Wisecota, and Minnesaugiaw. However, the proposed FS-10 rerouting through Ohunkagan and Marksville to run westward along current FS-8 will alleviate this, I just think there should be a route number allocated for an east-west motorway south of FS-10 for some of these states if they so desire. I realize that a lot of this can be done with state routes (like WI-1 and MG-1 currently) or 3-digit motorways (similar to how FS-803 in Alormen or FS-660 in West Massodeya are used), but I think at least one east-west and one north-south motorway number in the single digits should be reserved, if for nothing else than a "just in case".

Thinking FS-50 ran concurrently east of Minneuka was a goof on my part, I forgot that FS-2 and FS-40 were the concurrent routes between Minneuka and North-Central Gnaerey and that FS-50 entered Reeseport from the west-northwest. I think ending FS-50 in Reeseport would be a suitable end, as there are ample numbers that could be used between the proposed FS-40 (current FS-30) and FS-60 east of the Asphales, as no east-west numbers aside from FS-50 are in use currently.

On that note, will FS-60 from Lunenburgh eastwards be removed? I know there were talks about doing so, but I didn't see it in the points above.

PoisonDog522 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Additionally: I should add that I don't mean these comments to come off as negative; I'm as a whole for this to go through, there are just a few things that I'm a little iffy on. PoisonDog522 (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

You bring up a good point about how the current alignment of FS-10 leaves many potential east-west corridors south of the alignment and therefore "off" the grid, and that is definitely something that would need to be addressed by mappers in both the Lakes and the Southeast. However, I think there's also some sort of solution that has no impact to any routes north of FS-20 (in other words, the vast majority of the FSA), so if we move forward with this framework in my opinion that could be something addressed with the affected regions rather than at a national level.

FS-60 for now technically ends at Shawcross; the tags in East Massodeya are depreciated and I think that state will be restructured at some point (it has been in "reserved" status for quite some time), and given the vacancies in the Northeast and the lack of FS-60 in Laine, I think it's unlikely it'd be re-extended into the Northeast. However, that's an ongoing issue regardless of this thread, which is why it wasn't initially included here. Good question though. --TheMayor (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding: I realized I didn't address your suggestion about FS-50. I would support truncating it in Reeseport; however, with -28 vacant and Opelika on the marked for withdrawal list, we may want to wait until that area has a bit more stability before making a final decision. Another option would be to have two different FS-50s: a Wahanta-Reeseport segment and a Williamsburg-Richardsport segment, with the center long-distance concurrencies left unlabeled. --TheMayor (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

To the point of FS-10's current alignment leaving out regions south, there was a discussion elsewhere about changing the routing of FS-10 farther south (in one option, to replace or duplex with the aforementioned WI-1), which would address the issue to an extent, but it largely depends on how the stateowners decide to route within their own state and the East Lakes region. I would be willing to discuss specifics on an FS-10 rerouting if the region at large agrees to it. ~ Canada LaVearn (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I will address three of the points for now. I appreciate that we can at least consider some minor revisions to the system. Since I feel responsible for poking the hornet's nest in a different discussion, it seems wise to comment a little bit here.

Point 2 is something I've long advocated for, and this would solve a lot right here. There are a few instances of FS three-digit and non-FS routes that can be stringed together logically that would fill in the system nicely. We had been forced to avoid this before or come up with some bizarre alignments in the past to make things work.
I also support Point 1 from an administrative standpoint. I see no need to have an official "class" on the transportation page. The most important ones will be apparent on the map. That said, I understand why there is some hesitation, since the US officially has that type of hierarchy even if most average drivers are unaware. My point, I think that from an administrative standpoint we would not class these by importance is a good thing; the map should speak for itself.
That said, in thinking about this more, I do think reserving all single digits for future diagonals might be excessive at this point. FS-5, from what was said in another discussion, is a relic of past mapping and does not need to be retained. I think keeping FS-8 and FS-9 aside for use south of 10 or east of 11 (and possibly 6 and 7 as an either/or) would be a good compromise. I have a suspicion that simply relaxing the crossing rule with Point 2 will alleviate most need for potential diagonals. We may even be able to renumber FS-3, to be honest. (Although, granted, that is a separate conversation.)
Regarding the discussion about FS-50 above, I fully support either breaking 50 into two parts with an implied concurrency or renumbering one of the legs. If we wanted, we could consider renumbering FS-60 in Des Plaines, West Massodeya, and Alormen. It would be quite difficult to renumber the western FS-50 as 60, since it involves a lot of states. The eastern leg could much more easily be renumbered as 60 or just something else altogether (leaving 60 available for Stanley east to Orterrado). If it came to it, I'd be willing to renumber 60 in West Massodeya.

Thanks. — Alessa _(talk) 20:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that if this does come to a vote, it should likely be split into separate parts, as there are several different and distinct aspects to the proposal; someone who may be against one of the measures may not necessarily be against all five, and the opposite is true. Most of the reroutings discussed aside from FS-30 and FS-40 (those being FS-3, FS-10, FS-22, FS-50, and FS-60) could also be separate discussions if warranted. PoisonDog522 (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Objections

Hey! Looked at the reforms and I have some objections.

With the change of route designation, I do think it should stay, especially since it gives a clearer look to what routes are more important than others, and especially with the (mostly) transcontinental X0 and X1 routes, however it wouldn't be a bad idea to detonate some secondary routes as more important than others. (i.e. FS-75 being more important than FS-16 for example).

With routes crossing each other, I like this idea to an extent, I would prefer if the crossing and thus "break" had to be review first and not have it "break" too far, and also recommend routes that don't "break" to generally keep to the current "grid", but I could see I-71s and I-26s though in certain situations.

Regarding diagonals, I would recommend this gets brought up when there is support to add them, as I worry this will become official but no new diagonals will be added, thus leaving them unused, and currently I don't think there is any real support to add one, why it should be put on the shelf for now.

Finally with the rerouting, I think it's fine as it is, and I do see FS-22 fitting within the more "important secondaries", I would wait to see if any new routings will be made as I think some new motorways will fit under the "spur" category, and if any new motorways needing to be added, wouldn't be a bad idea going over the current motorways to see which ones will fit better as a "spur" rather than a mainline route and which ones are getting unused, plus I wouldn't mind crossings that "break the grid" in this area as well, as long as the numbering makes since.

These are my comments about it, and I think this fits better in the Objections page, we can talk more about it if needed, also if a majority agree to the suggestions you made, I wouldn't mind it then. RhodeIslandWV (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Just want to address your comments one-by-one:

"it gives a clearer look to what routes are more important than others" -- that's the entire point, there should not be routes that are "more important" than others. The strength of the network is the network effects, and when mappers get preoccupied about whether or not a route (and therefore, their state or the cities along it) is "primary" or "secondary" is not productive.

"I would prefer if the crossing and thus "break" had to be review first and not have it "break" too far" -- assigning route numbers is still something that requires coordinator and/or admin approval. That would not change, but it would allow for more flexibilities for stateowners to propose new routes, and more latitude for coordinators/admins to approve them.

"I would recommend this gets brought up when there is support to add them, as I worry this will become official but no new diagonals will be added, thus leaving them unused, and currently I don't think there is any real support to add one, why it should be put on the shelf for now." -- Once again, the point of this proposal is to specifically reserve single-digit numbers for future multi-state routing proposals that may come up in the future. OGF as a whole is very fluid, and for a system like this to stay both structured and adaptive to future changes or concepts years from now, being able to have these types of things available later on is important. The FSA's geography has changed in many ways since this structure was first implemented; we must assume that future changes to the project will be inevitable at some point.

"I would wait to see if any new routings will be made as I think some new motorways will fit under the "spur" category, and if any new motorways needing to be added, wouldn't be a bad idea going over the current motorways to see which ones will fit better as a "spur" rather than a mainline route and which ones are getting unused" -- "Spurs" are not a thing in the mainline FSA motorway network, so I am uncertain what specifically you are referring to here.

I hope this helps to clarify things. --TheMayor (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Read this, and I'll go and address him.

Starting off with how routes should all be equal, even if it was like that officially, certain routes will be de facto more important than others, especially with how the FS Motorway system is like, ad in the FSA, some routes will always be more important than others, officially or unofficially, plus only having X0 and X1 routes as grid routes will be odd, especially since practically all of them go transcontinental, so a regular person will find those routes more important than one simply connecting 2 cities. I get your reasoning behind the removal, but even with that I do think some people will unofficially label them. Again, you can label certain secondary routes like FS-75 and FS-55 as "Important Secondaries", also if you want to get into how the FSA would've plan the motorway network, they will very likely label the routes by importance.

Regarding the crossings, I don't mind it then, I am mostly worry it will be quite common and could lead numbers to generally lose the purpose, and would prefer it be more so uncommon, so like more relaxed like you said, but not too relaxed.

With the diagonals, I get you see potential future diagonals in the FSA, but I do agree with PoisonDog about how 9 reserver numbers is too much, and like I said before, I haven't found any interesting in a new diagonal from what I've seen, and thus I think it will be better talked about when there is a clear move towards adding new diagonals, however I could still see FS-4 being reserved for a diagonal in Cosperica, and I get you want to plan for the future, but there is a difference for when the planning does work out (i.e More diagonals do get added) and not working out (i.e. No new diagonals are added and thus the reserved numbers sit there staying unused). This is why I will prefer it being talked about when interest and actual planning of a new diagonal or multiple of them go up.

With the final part, I just used "spur" as another word for "auxiliary routes", and I know true spurs aren't allowed in the system, just clearing that up.

I do hope this gives you more info as to why I approve or disapprove certain things about this. RhodeIslandWV (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)