Forum:Federal States/Mapping in Vacant States
As of 18 May 2022 there over a dozen vacant FSA states, most of them have left-over mapping from previous owners. We currently have a policy regarding railways that cross vacant states. It sets out the framework for creating new railway lines and incorporating pre-existing lines into new routes. It tries to balance the need for national rail planning against the freedoms of new mappers.
The vacant states often have roads and motorways left behind by their previous owners. While most are unimportant, some routes link between active states and are significant nationally. Should we extend the railway policy to include significant roads and motorways?
Other things to consider might be.. Would this benefit current mappers and the FSA project or would it be too restrictive on the freedoms of future participants? How do we decide which routes fall under the policy? Who makes the final call?
- I think this rule could reasonably be scaled up to the motorway network without a major issue; after all, the major motorway routes are already planned (see Collab:Federal States/Highways). I would err on the side of caution in other cases though: if there are three adjacent states (A, B, and C) and State B is vacant, I’d like to make sure that the mappers of both State A and State C are in agreement on whatever the connection through State B would be before it gets mapped. Likewise, if there is no owned state on the other side of the corridor, or if there are multiple adjacent vacant states, I think we’d still be better off leaving them untouched until a new mapper is found since too much can change in the future. -TheMayor (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)