Talk:OGF:Federal States/Highways

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Available Route Numbers

All available route numbers must be requested with a route plan before adding to the map or declaring the route number assigned. Submit route number requests here. -TheMayor (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

Example: I'm requesting FS-93 for a new route between Minnonigan, AR120-57, and the national boundary at Naxema. The route would begin at FS-91 in Ondassagam, MN and generally parallel the westernmost Grand Lake, connecting with FS-20 and ultimately reaching a FSA southern neighbor that isn't connected to the motorway network from the Lakes Region. While the route is relatively short and only directly serves two states, I think a motorway connection to one of our neighboring countries merits a secondary route number. -TheMayor (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2019 (CEST)
FSA Coordinator Decision: Since AR120-57 is currently vacant, FS-93 is tentatively approved for use but may be subject to change once an owner of AR120-57 is identified. -TheMayor (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-59

"FS-59": I am requesting a motorway designation, FS-59, for a motorway along the coast of Tulpanen. FS-59's northern terminus would be at the junction with FS-20 (currently on the map as Route 30, which will be changed later). The route would roughly follow the Grand Lake to the west before ending somewhere in the peninsula in southern Tulpanen at a two lane state route. The route would also serve a future major city that is to later be mapped in the central lakeshore of Tulpanen. Although being an intrastate route (unless the route gets shifted to the east to follow the shoreline of AR120-37) the connections FS-59 would make are important enough to warrant a secondary route number. --Yoyo21 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2019 (CEST)

CEST)

FSA Coordinator Decision: Wherever possible a planned motorway should end at either another motorway, a military facility, or a major transportation facility (airport, seaport, ferry, etc.) rather than a two-lane road. However, if your route roughly followed your western coast and hooked east to enter AR120-37 (and a likely future motorway that runs down to Spero), that routing would merit a FS motorway number. So your two options are (1) keep your original plan and make it a state route, or (2) tweak your plan to head into AR120-37. If you want to do (2), let me know and FS-59 will be tentatively approved contingent on your future neighbor. (If you envision FS-10 to be that east-west connection or if you have other ideas, post a quick sketch of your statewide motorway plan.) -TheMayor (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2019 (CEST)
TulpanenMotorwayPlan.png
Here is my current plan for Tulpanen's motorways. I might end up switching 59 and 459 to give 59 a shorter route around the metropolis, but that would make the FS 10 and FS-59 concurrency longer. --Yoyo21 (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2019 (CEST)
I'm approving your application for FS-59, although I'd suggest flip-flopping FS-59 and FS-259 through your planned metropolis. -TheMayor (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-22

Me and Histor are proposing a new motorway, FS-22, as a connector between the Stanton metropolis and FS-21. The motorway, currently designated as I-28, starts in Ann'harbor and goes due west, crossing FS-11 and FS-20. After going past the Arghennite border, it will traverse gaps in the Arghenna Mountains and pass by a few Stanton tourist towns and a future city of around 20k I have planned in the Rodham Valley. Then it will through Gilliad and terminate at FS-21. As planned, it would go through 3 states, qualifying it as a proper FS-xx route. --Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2019 (CEST)

FSA Coordinator Decision: Assuming Jarrodcamo could work it into his plans for southern Gilliad, I'm approving this request. But please verify with him when you get a chance. -TheMayor (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2019 (CEST)
We veryfire, before we ask you. This F-22 is o.k. from New Carnaby, Arghenna and Gilliad --Histor (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-11 and FS-9 in Stanton

@Histor, shouldnt your FS-9 be FS-11. Otherwise where does 11 go to the South of Stanton. Or, it could be your FS-13. Either way, either FS-9 or FS-13 should become FS-11. --Zytik (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

No. Both - FS 9 and FS-11 - will end in Stanton and both at the FS-1. The direct connection F-11 and F-9 is FS-109. The FS-11 (Class "A") is the main way from Stanton to the northwest and FS-9 (Class "B")leads to the south like the FS-13 (old I-83). FS-11 and FS-9 are different traffic-relations with different importance. I never had liked the old I-85 with its stange curves. --Histor (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (CEST)
FS-11 is a primary route that must continue south of Stanton (and indeed all the way to the FSA’s national boundary with Kaneiwa). Do not alter the endpoints of primary routes without first consulting the FSA Coordinator. -TheMayor (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

You mean, the FS-11 only will touch Stanton? As you all like it, then this motorway in Stanton must run a while over the same route as FS-1. The conection FS-11 to FS-11 (formerly FS-9) then will be FS-111 as "Stanton-Bypass" (or what?) - What with I-28? [1] If I-30 become FS-20, then I think FS-22 is a better number for I-28. Tell me, what is your meaning, before I spent a lot of time for later unused work.

But then have an eye on I-30, now FS-20 and the ridiculus bow to Duxbury instead a short way Swansea - Swampscott - Warwick. Most importance of a motorway lays not in the number-system, but in the usage for heavy and fast traffic.

And what means "pending" at FS-13? The natural target for this motorway is Perth in Kaneiwa or Ushen. Do you not think, a town like Stanton needs some more connections as towns like Xavier, Lafayette, Saint-Jacobs or New Annshire? --Histor (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2019 (CEST)

Duxbury is a future project city of mine, just have not had time to develop it yet. The area to the north (Danvers/Ipswich) is also planned to be a large tourist area, thus the highway bows out to carry Duxbury city and tourist capacity. Plus, old trappard and Swansea are probably going to be removed or severely downgraded in size. I am currently talking with Greg about how he has a lot of big cities he has planned for Aidlenaide, which doesnt make much sense. --Zytik (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2019 (CEST)
You may have noticed states to the south include FS-11 in their systems, so FS-11 needs to pass through the Stanton area, not end in it. FS-9 and FS-13 are "pending" because new route numbers need to be approved, specifically for reasons like this where they may not be warranted. For instance, here's a quick sketch I came up with for potential routings in the Stanton area, based on what neighboring states like Penquisset have already implemented. This is only one possible option and should not be considered the final word in the matter, but serves as an example of how it still can work for everyone involved.
StantonMotorwayProposal.png
This suggestion only requires one new route number (FS-22) and avoids most concurrencies. If you have issues with the routing of FS-20 into Aidlenaide, FS-30 is also available in this location instead of FS-20, but in either case those decisions are both outside of New Carnaby. In this sketch, there are two FS-520s, which is intentional since they can either be connected in the future via the Athloon Beltway/Yorknew Parkway or have this as a "freeway revolt" location.
But the bigger point is, we all have to work with our neighboring states to make this work from a national perspective. If anyone wants to change the overall plan or wants to add to it, make sure your neighbors are in agreement and try to understand the mapping impacts outside your own state before making significant changes to the plan which all took us quite a while to work out. -TheMayor (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2019 (CEST)
This is good, thank you--I added FS-11 to Culpepper because it was part of the plan. I am open to changes, of course, and I am happy to work with anyone on this. Originally what used to be I-83 was supposed to go through Culpepper and leave the state where FS-11 does now, I'm happy to connect that route and number it whatever works. --Whateversusan (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2019 (CEST)
Sorry, I had a lot of agreements with Zytix, Mstr, BMSOUZA, Easky30 and Portopolis for New Carnaby and Stanton. Long months this motorway was I-83 with a definded target and if now not FS-13, what then else? To downgrade to FS-211 is not o.k. You never ask me for this. This motorway do not join the FS-11, but run more to the southwest. Stanton is a city with 9 000 000 inhabitants and it is clear, that Stanton needs more connections as some small towns in the FSA, hidden in a djungle of motorways.
Indeed FS-22 needs only one new route number. But you get free # 28. What is the problem? --Histor (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2019 (CEST)
Keep in mind I have absolutely no say in this matter, so all of you can feel free to ignore me. But looking at it, I did have a suggestion/thought/question. Question- where to the southwest was the then-I-83 supposed to go? Was there a planned collaborative city in New Carnaby? Or was it more mostly planned to connect to the node mapped as Greenville? If it was planned to connect to Greenville, naming it FS-210 might be more reasonable, acting as a branch off Greenville's future FS-10 that leads into Stanton, eventually connecting with FS-20 (thus technically, though perhaps rule-bendingly, qualifying it as a 3-digit "bypass"). This way it's still not using a major number, but is allowed to follow the general route Histor originally planned. As Histor himself said earlier, "Most importance of a motorway lays not in the number-system, but in the usage for heavy and fast traffic"- and a theoretical FS-210 wouldn't have to actually be less important just because of the 3 digit number. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2019 (CEST)
The only reason I assumed what was I-83 and is now FS-13 had anything to do with my state is that before I started mapping there somebody drew a "future I-83 route" from the New Carnaby border down to Astrantia (which I deleted). I actually don't think it makes sense to go there, so having it bypass Culpepper and head southwest works fine. --Whateversusan (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2019 (CEST)


Meanwhile Tom_m7 to me has written, that FS-13 through "AR-210-18" is o.k. - so it can be switched in the list to "approved"--Histor (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2019 (CEST)

FS 85 or WA 91

This highway would be the main connector between two large cities, Miller and Gleason. As these two cities are industry hubs, many materials that are not able to travel by train would have to be transported. Currently, the shortest way is to go through Pike, Wallawaukee, and Gramercy. This route would go through the middle of the state, and if necessary, continue on into AR 120 - 46. If not an interstate, I could make it similar to the Florida Turnpike and have it be a toll route. -Oof boi (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-85HighwayProposalWalkegan.png

FSA Coordinator Decision: Since it appears FS-81 will be running east of the river through AR120-45, I'm approving your request for FS-85 between Miller and your planned city of Donovan, contingent on you extending FS-85 into AR120-46, since that state does not have a planned north-south motorway option. -TheMayor (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2019 (CEST)

FS 14, 16, or 18

Per a telegram I sent to the involved states: " In my head, this motorway connects Hearthsbridge (which, if I am correct is the capital of Culpeper), Five Lakes (Capital of Teenesccan), and Pronoro (Capital of Fermont). In my opinion, this makes sense because:

1. It connects FS 1 and FS 11, so that people in Fermont don't have to drive all the way up to Stanton to get to Hearthsbridge, or vice versa.

2.It connects the ports in Pronoro to Five Lakes' fishing and ultimately to Hearthsbridge, which is, per the Culpeper plans, and industrial city, and one that connects to markets in Radienne and Sadikady

3.It reduces the traffic flow into Stanton by opening a "shortcut" to get from FS 1 to FS 11. This is better for the economy, since goods, services, and ideas will be able to travel faster with less traffic. "

Both whateversusan and JayPlaysBeamNG are on board with the idea. We are just waiting for approval. A segment has already been built as a tollway (technically 4) from TN-1 to the Culpepper-Teenesccan state line under multiple designations (GTGT, GMPT, FLBT, and CRET). Other segments may be built in the future, depending on what the result of this is.

Best regards,

Talk to Rhiney boi 00:27, 18 June 2019 (CEST)

FSA Coordinator Decision: I’m approving you and your neighbors’ request to use FS-16 for the proposed alignment. However, I’d suggest reaching out to the New Carnaby mappers, since pushing the new route through Hearthsbridge and connecting it with FS-13 near Shady Lake seems logical (depending on the geography along the state border). -TheMayor (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2019 (CEST)
If wished, this route in New Carnaby can cross FS-13 near exit 17 and run to the Capital of New Carnaby (may be partly in construction) --Histor (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2019 (CEST).
That is a good plan. I will map this to the Culpepper/New Carnaby border near NC state route 50. --Whateversusan (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-24

FS-24 will be a new route that connects the cities of Lake City (Minnonigan), Pike (Walkegan), and Nordseehaven (Oronotia), via a new route north of Lake Glen. On the eastern end, the route meets FS-20 just west of the Walkegan/Oronotia state line to avoid requiring an additional bridge over the unnamed river. All three affected stateowners are in agreement on this routing. -TheMayor (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2019 (CEST)

FS-9

"FS-9": I am requesting a motorway designation, FS-9, for a motorway along the Ardentic Coast between San Vegas, Arlington and Oceansburough, Boscainifornio (potentially Tansid, Natrinia). I have gotten approval from the state owner of Arlington, but not from Natrinia yet. FS-9’s northern terminus would be at the junction with FS-511 in San Vegas, AR. The route would roughly follow the coast and in the Bonnaventure metro area would replace AR 8 and BC 31 and would end at FS-15 in Oceansburough. The route would serve the San Vegas metro area, the large Bonnaventure-Oswego metro area and surrounding exurban areas, as well as the Oceansburough metro area. Although it would only serve two states, FS-9 would be extremely important enough to warrant a secondary route number, considering the effects on commerce and overall traffic volume. --TBMap (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2019 (CEST)

Is there a particular reason why FS-11 couldn’t connect Bonnaventure and San Vegas? Having two parallel motorways only about 30 miles apart seems like it could be a little excessive. Also, would there be any plans to extend the route north into Larimont? A new route that basically dead-ends into San Vegas may not be terribly realistic. -TheMayor (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2019 (CEST)
Currently, I’m planning on rerouting FS-11 so it would connect directly from Morsboro to Yorksey, then just south of New St Richards and into Arlington. Therefore, it’d be awkward to connect to Yorksey then almost dead east to Bonnaventure, then north. Also, the owner of Arlington has expressed to me that he wants to route FS-11 through the dead center of his state. Yet, FS-9 would serve as a direct connection to three (perhaps four depending on Natrinia or Larimont) major urban hubs. IRL, Interstate 97 and Interstate 95 are within 10 miles of each other south of Baltimore, MD. I believe that FS-9 would be feasible because of the major amount of development planned for my coastal area, which would definitely need motorway level roads, and realistically the state wouldn’t be able to afford such a route, so a national motorway would be the only possible option. Also, FS-9 would likely extend north and south into Larimont and Natrinia, yet I haven’t discussed the idea with them yet, which is why I didn’t list them directly. --TBMap (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2019 (CEST)
Primary motorways shouldn’t end at auxiliary motorways, so FS-9 would need to go into Larimont somehow and end at a future east-west primary motorway. So you should work with Larimont to see what their motorway plans are and how FS-9 would fit into them before we can officially designate it as such. -TheMayor (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2019 (CEST)
Though I haven’t gotten a response back from Larimont yet, couldn’t FS-9 just end at FS-11 west of San Vegas in Arlington for the time being until built into Larimont to an East-West Motorway? --TBMap (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2019 (CEST)
Is it correct that you’re suggesting something like a giant “7” in Arlington, running northeast along the coast from Bonnaventure, then doglegging west from San Vegas to the future FS-11 in the “dead center” of Arlington? That doesn’t strike me as a terribly logical routing for a primary motorway. Maybe a rough sketch of what you (and Arlington) have in mind for your planned routings would make this discussion easier. -TheMayor (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2019 (CEST)
FSPlannedHighwayMapArlington.jpeg

Actually, this is more of what me and Pancake Killer we’re thinking --TBMap (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2019 (CEST)

I like this. Approved. -TheMayor (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2019 (CEST)

Motorway Shield Voting

🚫This section is now closed. The process has moved on to discussion and voting.

Use this section to vote on shields. Each FSA mapper can vote for up to three times. Add a line and use the standard wiki signature feature to add your name (:* -~~~~).

  • Option 1
  • Option 2
  • Option 3
  • Option 4
  • Option 5
  • Option 6
  • Option 7
  • Option 8
  • Option 9
  • Option 10

FS-55 Routing

Today, I noticed a new highway routing had been assigned: FS-55. When I saw the highway's intended southern terminus (Spero) was the same as FS-59's, it made me wonder about the routing of both routes. (Would one go to Johania?) I also intend to build a Northeastern Expressway radiating out from suburban Lemmington northeast. I then wanted to coordinate with my neighbor to extend the highway to Kennedy, and get it approved as FS-57. So, I created four possible highway routings for the area, just based off of my plans. TulpanenProposal1.png TulpanenProposal2.png TulpanenProposal3.png TulpanenProposal4.png Which of these do you think makes the most sense? --Yoyo21 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2019 (CEST)

I added FS-55 as part of the Massodeya project up near Alormen. Of the four options you listed, I'd suggest Proposal 1 with the following changes:
  • Instead of FS-110, have FS-59 run over the black corridor to link up with FS-10 at Beckford.
  • The "tail" portion of the blue corridor can be a state route; I'd imagine development in that area probably wouldn't require a full motorway all the way to the tip anyway.
  • Change the orange corridor from FS-57 to FS-x59, since I think that's too short of a corridor for a two-digit designation. (You should coordinate with plainoldbread on which number to use.)
(Looking at your current mapping, I think this would also require the fewest changes for you as well.) -TheMayor (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2019 (CEST)

FS-2, 4, and 6

With Bas-Chanceux and Sakardia joining the AR045 project, and highways 2, 4, and 6 being reserved for cross highways in those states, will they just not exist? Or will there be some renumberings or shifts? --Yoyo21 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2019 (CEST)

I'd say they should be moved to a permanent "reserved" status, rather than trying to shoehorn them in elsewhere in the system. It's also possible that other parts of the FSA may change -- AR120-56 has been moved to "reserved" status and has no land connection to the rest of the FSA anyways; AR120-61 (Velena) has been inactive for over four months and, given its location, I wouldn't be surprised if that eventually becomes part of AR045 as well (which would also free up FS-8). Things could go the other way too -- an FSA Alaska/Hawaii is always possible in the future, so having a few route numbers in the bank wouldn't be the worst idea. -TheMayor (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2019 (CEST)
Okay, legitimate question. Should I be rethinking my mapping in southern Seneppi to assume that I'll have an international border in the near future if Velena stays inactive? If that southern border is going to be a border with AR045 it'll affect the way I map the area, potentially languagewise and culturewise too, and probably modify the need for certain rail lines and highway extensions as well. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 05:40, 23 October 2019 (CEST)
That’s an admin question (although to be fair Seneppi does already have an international border with Naxema). I’ve had (very) preliminary discussions with Wangi on that particular territory, but I think the focus right now is getting AR045 up and running, so for now Velena is still officially part of the FSA albeit inactive. -TheMayor (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2019 (CEST)
No plans to incorporate Velena AR120-61 into AR045, it is staying part of the Federal States. /wangi (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2019 (CEST)

Establishment of FS-routes

Does anyone have thoughts on when the Federal States routes were created (ie when the system was developed)? As we have no equivalent of US routes, I imagine that the FS-routes would be comprised of former state routes; that is the case in Sierra, and old state route numbers were reassigned. Brunanter (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2019 (CET)