Forum:Global and regional issues/Uletha - Continental Road Numbering System
Topic
Similar to the European E-roads and Asian Highways networks, a continental network within (West) Uletha can be developed in the same fashion, designating existing mapped motorways and national roads as part of a numbering scheme, as well as attempting to create a coherent network of roads between territories, enhancing collaboration between users. The concept is simple, designate control cities as checkpoints and connect them as part of a very loose grid network of roads. Each territory will be represented by at least one control city, and users themselves will decide where exactly will the route be located within their own territory, as long as it connects to the other control cities.
The goal is not to force users to map roads as told, the idea is based on numbering existing roads, not necessarily creating new connections (although users are free to do that as well). The idea is non-binding, meaning users do not have to follow the system if they do not want to, alike certain countries in the real world (such as the United Kingdom and Albania). Users are also free to suggest alternatives to the proposal.
The idea was coined and the proposal developed by users Timboh and Bixelkoven, who originally intended on developing a system that would be used within ASUN and wanted to spread the idea across the continent. The proposal does not define the template of the numbers, such as the E- prefix in the European equivalent. The simplest idea is to use the prefix U (which stands for Uletha), for example U10 . Some other ideas for the prefix include: UL-10, UH·10.
The image of the proposal can be found at the following link, hosted externally due to the large size of the file.
In the Discussion tab below, users are welcome to suggest alternative routes, propose different ideas to the concept as a whole, suggest control cities, or in general discuss whether this proposal/system is a good or bad idea.
How is it mapped?
Road numbers are tagged with the ref=* tag, both on OpenStreetMap and OpenGeofiction. The European E-routes are tagged on OpenStreetMap using the int_ref=* tag which does not render on the standard Carto map style. Countries such as Sweden and Belgium, which solely use this system for some of their road networks utilize the ref=* tag, which does render. Some custom renderers do render the int_ref=* tagged values.
On OGF, the simplest way to render the road number would be to utilize the ref=* tag, for example ref=U10. However, given that by default countries have their own numbering systems, the solution would be to tag both numbers under the same tag, separated by semicolons. Example: ref=A3;U10 or ref=57;UL-87, rendering one number below the other. External (off-site) renderers may offer the alternative to separate the two different systems, but this forum post concerns only the standard Carto map style used on OGF.
Additionally, routes are tagged as relations with the roads as the relation members. It is not imperative to create a relation, using only the ref=* tag is enough. Here's an example on how a E route is tagged on OpenStreetMap: E 75 in Finland. As part of the relation, the network=U-road (for example) tag designates the road system which the road is part of.
Road shield design
The (unofficial) Americana custom renderer hosted off-site allows for custom road number shields that will appear on roads alongside other number tags. Examples:
- Motorway 5 in Navenna∈⊾ƨ - rendering as such
- National road 10 in Navenna∈⊾ƨ - rendering as such
- Various motorways, expressways and roads in the Federal States and Deodeca such as Highway 107∈⊾ƨ rendering as such or SN 906 rendering as such.
Similar to these, it's possible to have the U roads render on that map style given the appropriate tagging. Unless the shape of the road number shield is a simple colored rectangle (such as the E road shield), a custom SVG file can be used to show the road numbering. The same can be used to list the roads on this wiki. It is wise to note that this road shield will not feature on the standard OGF Carto rendering style. With that, users are free to propose designs in the Discussion section below, providing both a numberless template, as well as one with an example number. The only requirements are for the templates to be flexible/adaptable with the number length, and for the template to be in the SVG file format.
The gallery of existing road shield styles can be seen at the following Link.
Tagging for the custom renderer
NOTE: This section will become more relevant after the road shield design has been confirmed, although it is still wise to tag the routes irregardless.
In order for the road numbers with the appropriate road shield to appear correctly on the custom Americana map style, each road under a specific number should be part of a single relation, that is, its mapped ways. The ways can either have the forward role, or have no defined role within the relation. For easier management, the relations should not span multiple territories.
The relation itself should feature the following tags:
type=route- Defining that it is a route-type relationroute=road- Defining that the route is a roadnetwork=U-road- Defining the network itself, required for the renderer to match the shield designref=*- The route number in the format: UXX, where XX is the route number, e.g. U10name=*- A custom name of the route, usually in the format: Ulethan route U10 (Country), noting which country is the relation located in
Other tags are optional and not required. The earlier mentioned Motorway 5 in Navenna∈⊾ƨ can be taken as an example of how to successfully tag a route.
Discussion
If you have comments regarding this topic, please add them here. The proposal will be finalized on the 22nd of January, 2026. ── Bixelkoven (talk) (West Uletha Admin) 19:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have to comments I would like to make. The first is that I wonder whether East and West Uletha are aligned closely enough, politically, to make a uniform road nomenclature across the continent realistic. It would be similar to having a Eurasian road numbering scheme as opposed to the two examples Bixel gives in the introduction. Maybe this is a topic for the EUOIA etc.? And secondly, on the road network itself, it seems very focussed on my eyes on east-west and north-south directionality, similar to the US interstate system. This is a valid approach, but have you also considered a more strategic, corridor-focussed approach, maybe more similar to the European TEN-T corridors? They are drawn so that major economic regions are connected which leads to some corridors not being strictly north-south or east-west. Just a thought I want to throw out there, I also see the appeal in the presented approach. Best, and merry Christmas to the eastern Hemisphere already! Leowezy (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- As someone who only map in West Uletha, I personally do not feel strongly about whether East Uletha is included in the system or not. The proposal was created with route numbers reserved for East Uletha in case that the territories of East Uletha would want to be included. If we were to implement the system only in West Uletha, it might be wise to reserve the East Ulethan route numbers just in case. West and East Uletha do share a long land border, but to what degree long-distance road travel occurs between these two regions depends on the political and economic relations between territories along the border. As for who implemented the system, it could either have been agreed upon top-down, for example through an AN treaty much like the real life UNECE, or it could have begun as a regional initiative, such as an ASUN or EUOIA treaty that over time expanded in scope to eventually include much of the continent. As for the second point, we have experimented with proposals for a pan-Ulethan route network based on strategic corridors in the past. In theory it is an excellent idea - basing the network on actual expected functional spatial relationships between nodes would give us a more efficient network. This previous proposal never got any traction unfortunately. The main obstacles with this approach is that defining strategic corridors requires much more in-depth knowledge about the geography, economic structure och functional flows of each and every territory. Since the world of OGF is ever changing, with territories switching ownership and changing their general character regularly, this would necessitate reworking these strategic corridors very often to make sure they still "make sense". I believe that this proposal, which takes heavy inspiration from the way the international E-route network defines routes (E-routes primarliy follow cardinal directions), is more suitable given how the world of OGF is managed. Here we only need control cities, which we can safely assume there will be at least one of in every territory. Our proposal allows for C-class (triple-digit) routes that do not follow any cardinal direction. If a single mapper or a group of mappers identify an important link not covered by the A- or B-class U-network, they can create their own C-class route on their own initiative. The final proposal should probably include a recommendation for how to select a suitable reference number for these C-class routes. Timboh (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
I like this idea; I'm also minded to slightly prefer the approach outlined here to the alternative in the comments here, as we would need a high baseline of information about each territory, which (writing as someone who frankly does not commit to mapping things out as routinely and extensively as I would like to!) is - in my view, at least - not as viable, especially as territories come and go. Either idea would work great though (and it is really important that ideas like this don't just fade, so I'd urge that both plans are workable and one should be implemented ASAP), and I'd be more than happy to work them into Almetia. ── Alsatian (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
As a mapper in Eastern Uletha, I approve of this initiative. In fact, I have already started tagging some routes. Some alignments in EU may need rethinking, but generally, they are okay. Sorry for not being able to provide a more constructive comment at this time. For now, I would just like to say that I like this project. --Izaland Terramorphing Committee (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Given my overall focus on West Uletha, I am much more familiar with the territories there than East Uletha, therefore East Ulethans are very welcome to propose alternatives. That being said, East Uletha's landforms are very peculiar, long and narrow, making routes go funny ways, particularly on the north-south axis. ── Bixelkoven (talk) (West Uletha Admin) 12:40, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
I could go either way on whether we should do this type of a road network, and I've generally been apathetic in the past about this type of international coordination. If this is what everyone wants, then I'm not against going along with it. I do think it should be permitted to allow territories to not sign the U-routes if they do not want to, just as there are countries that do not sign E-routes. I do believe, however, that the route should be included in the relation as a way of indicating that it still exists. So, if a territory decides not to add U-999 to the ref=* tag, so be it; but, the route of U-999 would still be added to the 999 relation. I think that's a fair compromise. Lastly, it seems like most wouldn't agree, but I personally like the idea of east and west Uletha doing something different and not being on the same network. There are two clear spheres of connectivity, despite the overlap. The "east" and "west" do not have to be split based on the semi-arbitrary continental dividing line we have for territory administration. Ohemia through UL18c could easily be in both zones as desired. It seems logical that ASUN and EUOIA were the impetus for these initiatives regionally and expanding to non-member states through whatever diplomatic means. — Alessa (talk) 15:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
- The proposal is indeed non-binding, as mentioned above. The E-road network is planned for the entirety of Europe+ by the UN, but countries can choose not to utilise the system (like the UK which doesn't show the numbers on its road signs). This proposal can work in the same fashion, it can be planned for the entire landmass, and those who want to participate are welcome to. I agree regarding the relations part, after adding to the ref tags to my own roads I realised it may end up way too cluttered sometimes, notably with 3 or more tags. ── Bixelkoven (talk) (West Uletha Admin) 21:49, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
I like the idea as presented and will implement it in Drabantia once the mapping and tagging standard is finalized. —Eklas (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2025 (UTC)