Jump to content

Forum:Global and regional issues/Future of UL24b

From OpenGeofiction

We the undersigned express our appreciation for the exceptional detail and quality of the mapping in the recently archived territory of UL24b - Mädische Union∈⊾ƨ, and our hope that in the future, the mapping could be added to in order to integrate the country with its neighbours. The territory was owned by Tars until late 2025 when, following a period of inactivity, it was archived due to the high standard of their mapping there.

We recognise the following points:

  • Archiving territories ensures that high quality mapping is preserved after a user becomes inactive for an extended period.
  • The existing mapping in UL24b∈⊾ƨ is exceptional, in particular the landuse and natural mapping, and we agree that it meets the high standard necessary for a territory to be archived.
  • The mapping is not fully complete. Specifically, some cities and towns in the east of the territory contain only a rough outline, while the wider road and railway networks are not fully complete and connected together.
  • The three territories bordering UL24b to the north, east, and south are all currently active.
  • There are current, continent-wide efforts to develop various international collaborative projects, such as the Pan Ulethan road network and the EUOIA political and economic union.
  • With all three neighbours being full EUOIA members, it becomes difficult to explain, within the fictional context, why there are no transport links (road or rail) across UL24b between, for example, Esvolksmark and Talennihafen, or between Terolask and Wyster.
  • In the original proposal for the Pan Ulethan road network, routes U50 and U85 both pass through the Mädische Union.

We would like to propose a framework by which the territory could, in the medium to long term, be developed in line with its neighbours.

  • First, to contact Tars to ask for their advice and input on whether they plan to return to mapping in future, and if not, whether they wish for their work to be built on or left untouched. We believe, based on past discussions, that they would be amenable to some (relatively small) amounts of mapping to integrate their work with their neighbours.
  • If after an extended period (perhaps 4 to 6 months, or longer if admins would prefer) it has not been possible to make contact with Tars, we propose that an exception is made to the archived status rules, and that a small, closed collaboration of users from East Uletha be permitted to work together, to develop the Mädische Union sensitively, in keeping with the existing mapping there, and while preserving all existing work by Tars.
  • This development could be limited to completing the road and railway networks to integrate them with the wider region, or it could also involve adding more detail to urban areas such as Talennihafen.

Signatures:

Discussion:

  • I like this initiative a lot, I think if it were accepted by Tars and the admins it would greatly help in creating a contiguous region of coherent and detailed mapping across multiple territories. I think it also may be an idea that could be developed into a procedure for ending ownership of a detailed and well-mapped territory without the risks of either the mapping being lost, should he territory become green, or that the mapping becomes frozen but not well connected to its neighbours, should it be archived. Qhfreddy (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Not a Uletha admin, but as Archanta admin there's precedent for mappers to be given limited permission, in scope and time, to edit neighbouring territories. I also know Tars indicated a desire to "drop in" edits from time to time. I would recommend building up a backlog of desired edits - ones which neighbouring territories agree with and effectively consider are already in-place - and when this reaches a high enough threshold then reach out to the right admins to request specific edit permission for only those changes. That reaching out could be OGF message and/or territory application. Any such request would be much stronger if it also demonstrated engagement and buy-in from Tars. Thanks/wangi (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Hello, first of all thanks for your understanding for my late reply -- I was on holiday :) I share the positive sentiment wangi has already expressed very well. The archived-status is very much open to allowing later changes if there is a wide consensus. In the case of this territory in particular, the archived-status is to preserve the high-quality natural land cover mapping, which leaves much room for aligning the transport network with its neighbours. Has anyone of the initiators tried to reach Tars so far? Leowezy (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Hello Leowezy and everyone else. As of now, I tried contacting Tars today, using their Discord account though I am not sure they are active - hopefully they do respond when they are able to. I and others fully agree with you that the high quality natural mapping definitely should be fully preserved though there should ideally be more detail in urban areas and more importantly integration of the transport network with the surrounding territories. Besides the goal of integration, it is also stated above but I would like to emphasise that connecting separate segments of roads and railways will also be important to allow for routing potentially and generally for the sake of 'completeness'. But otherwise, I would ideally like Tars to have a say on the rest such as specifically how they would like the territory to be integrated and completed so it will take some time to make the necessary decisions. GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
    I'd recommend reaching out using OGF message instead, thanks/wangi (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Hello everyone. Im a bit reticent about letting edit my country, but understanding that this is an open space for enthusiasts and seeking a better integretation on the mapping of the region, i propossed special editing regions to Jasmine and Green. The editing should be focussed on transnational infraestructure like highways, rodes, power lines, pipes, etc. I dont see the need to further edit, since the other countries are mostly unmapped. I cannot return to maping for now, so if the admins agree, i would like to leave the other areas untouched. Let me know what you think about the proposal. The map: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NN9phUMARU-YU50qt55hEJbsT5kCgU9_/view?usp=drive_link, thanks Tars (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Hello there again, I hope everyone has or will see Tars response if they're interested but I've also personally responded to them privately. The summary of my message was that priority indeed should be given to refining the work closest to the borders to connect with mine and JasmineDM's short-term tasks, while the extensive mapping further out could be addressed later, leaving remaining gaps for future discussion. But importantly, the community should keep in contact with Tars or reach a further consensus for long-term mapping. GreenStumpyMonster (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
  • Hello, from my side as regional admin, the two users namend by Tars can map transnational infrastructure in the areas specified by Tars. Leowezy (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.opengeofiction.net/index.php?title=Forum:Global_and_regional_issues/Future_of_UL24b&oldid=41699"