Forum:Federal States/Postal services and Forum:Global and regional issues/The South Archantan "Grand Lakes" System: Difference between pages

Revision as of 14:44, 5 July 2022

Forums → Global and regional issues → Global and regional issues/The South Archantan "Grand Lakes" System

The "Grand Lakes" system was originally inspired by North America's Great Lakes. They are set of glacially-created, large freshwater seas. I drew them when I first drafted the Federal States in around 2016 or 2017.

In their current forms, they include surrounding territories in the collaborative projects of the Federal States, Ardencia, and Deodeca.

After some discussion on discord, I wanted to move the conversation here to have a better long-term record of the situation.

Because some mappers (specifically, myself) want to maintain contours (topo) for territories adjacent to the Lakes, it's important to have the lakes' surface elevations fully worked-out and "canon".

The Lakes drain northward, along the Alormen River. So in order from lowest to highest, the lakes are as follows:

A. Leighton - elevation 159m
B. Unnamed (lower) - elevation 166m
C. Ashani - elevation 172m
D. Ohunkagan - elevation 178m
E. Unnamed (upper-north) - elevation 179m
F. Unnamed (upper-south) - elevation 179m
G. Sauganash - elevation 188m
H. Hanyala - elevation 190m
I. Betaouais - elevation 193m
J. Amancer - elevation 195m

The two lakes, Unnamed (upper-north) and Unnamed (upper-south) are a Michigan-Huron type system: hydrologically, the same lake, and therefore the same elevation, but with distinct names/concepts in people's minds. Or maybe they have the same name, but that's not how I have been habitually thinking of them.

Westhaven is a slightly different case. There has been discussion that it is not part of the same watershed / hydrological system. I would actually prefer that, and I recommend a drainage pattern northward, creating a kind of "heartland watershed" for the Deodeca project. Because of this, it could also have a lower elevation than the nearest Grand Lake. I've settled on this:

K. Westhaven - elevation 175m

The current elevations are now attached to the Lakes' relations with ele= tags. Please don't edit these without first noting consensus to change here in this forum discussion.

Another point of discussion - we still need to name the two largest lakes, which I've taken to calling "lower" and "upper". I remember quite a bit of discussion about this from a year or two ago, but frankly can't find my notes about it and don't recall where that discussion was recorded. Possibly discord but I thought it had also been recorded in another place (the old wiki?).

I think the level of "churn" in the ownership of nearby territories is such that expecting to ever have a consensus / quorum on naming the lakes is silly - we should just name them and be done with it. So in comments below, please offer thoughts as to names. We'll have some kind of vote I guess. How about on July 15th?

Some of the lakes' elevations are already 100% canon - because I've already been maintaining contour files for adjacent territories (Makaska and Ooayatais). Specifically, Unnamed (lower), Ohunkagan, and Unnamed (upper) *cannot be changed*. I'm flexible about the others, but they need to of course "fit in" with the already canon ones. So changes to my proposed elevations need to be well-reasoned, but I welcome them below in comments, too.

Thanks all! Happy mapping.

I think perhaps a slightly larger difference in elevation between Amanecer and Betaouais (J and I) would be reasonable in order to support the existence of the canal as it is currently mapped - perhaps making Amanecer 198m, or 200m would work nicely. This isn't necessary, but I don't think it conflicts with anything else. Aside from that, I agree with Westhaven flowing elsewhere. --Lithium-Ion (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<div class="forumheader" style="margin: 1; background-color: #eeeeee; text-align: left; padding: 5px;">'''[[Forum:Index|Forums]] &rarr; [[Forum:Federal States|Federal States]] &rarr; {{PAGENAME}}'''</div>[[Category:Federal States forum posts]]
+<div class="forumheader" style="margin: 1; background-color: #eeeeee; text-align: left; padding: 5px;">'''[[Forum:Index|Forums]] &rarr; [[Forum:Global and regional issues|Global and regional issues]] &rarr; {{PAGENAME}}'''</div>[[Category:Global and regional issues]]
 <!-- Write below this line, please. -->
+The "Grand Lakes" system was originally inspired by North America's Great Lakes. They are set of glacially-created, large freshwater seas. I drew them when I first drafted the Federal States in around 2016 or 2017.
-Hello, fellow FSA mappers. I'd like to kick off the discussion about postal services and start the discourse here about them. There has been degrees of interest at various times over the last couple of years. I think these are issues we can start tackling. The intention here is to have it be on the omnibus ballot at the beginning of August or to vote here on the forum by the end of August. &mdash; [[User:Alessa|Alessa]] <sub>([[User talk:Alessa|talk]])</sub> 04:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
+In their current forms, they include surrounding territories in the collaborative projects of the Federal States, Ardencia, and Deodeca.
-===Item 1: Post office name===
+After some discussion on discord, I wanted to move the conversation here to have a better long-term record of the situation.
-There are a lot of different options that are out there right now. Proposals are welcome. Discuss this item in the designated area below.
-* Main organization: Federal Postal Service; branch offices: Federal Post Office
-* Main organization: Federal States Couriers; branch offices: Courier Office
-====Discussion 1====
+Because some mappers (specifically, myself) want to maintain contours (topo) for territories adjacent to the Lakes, it's important to have the lakes' surface elevations fully worked-out and "canon".
-I guess the only thought I'd note (and that I'd acted upon back when I was mapping more heavily in the FSA) is that theoretically, "post office" (or mail office or something I guess) would still be an accurate descriptor of a branch/location regardless of the name of the postal service that runs it- so the service name and the location name need not match exactly unless you want to go for like really specific branding. Feel free to come to a different consensus among active/current members though. --[[User:Ernestpkirby|Ernestpkirby]] ([[User talk:Ernestpkirby|talk]]) 15:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
-===Item 2: Postal codes===
+[[File:Luciano_Screenshot_Grand_Lakes_v2.png]]
-====A note about how postal codes work in the United States====
-Most people may not realize that ZIP codes in the US have very specific meanings in the nine (yes, nine) digits. Our US-based users will recognize the five digits of the main postal code, established between World War II and 1963. The first digit is a region of the country. The second and third digit define sectional facilities for sorting mail. The fourth and fifth numbers are effectively municipal-level but were outlined based on where post offices were, how delivery could be done from those locations, and even landuse to a degree. There are a surprising number of benefits to having "zones" that are different from municipal boundaries. Some might argue that having it down to a specific block or building is better for sorting, but this ignores the other benefits of having zones. To help with sorting in the early 1980s, the USPS introduced four more digits (called a +4) that are optional for most commonplace deliveries but were designed to help with sorting and route marking. Digits six and seven narrow things down to a group of blocks or a specific office building if big enough. The last two digits identify specific buildings or even individual occupied spaces in buildings. By the early 1990s, however, the +4 never really caught on and were no longer needed with new sorting technologies that made life easier for postal workers.
-====Proposals====
+The Lakes drain northward, along the Alormen River. So in order from lowest to highest, the lakes are as follows:
-There has already been some preliminary discussion about this before, and a lot of users have expressed desire to begin any postal code with a state-defining designation. If you have additional proposals, please add them in the discussion below instead of directly to this list.
-:''In the proposed codes, A = assigned letters; NN = state ogf:id number; PP = two-letter state code; X = letter or numbers; Z = numbers
-* Proposal 1: NNAAZZ (two letters and last two numbers defined by state owners)
-* Proposal 2: NNZZZZ or NN-ZZZZ (last four defined by state owners)
-* Proposal 3: CCZZXX or CC-ZZXX (last four defined by state owners, where last two digits could be replaced by letters)
-====Discussion 2====
+* A. Leighton - elevation 159m
-Personally, I strongly prefer proposal three for the postal codes. Numbers keep things simple, easy to read, and create a clearly defined "space" for numbers that isn't confused by an average citizen (e.g. 135 North Grissom Street, Egmont ME-2975). Proposal two looks too wonky to me (e.g. 135 North Grissom Street, Egmont 43-2975). It creates a redundant system of state postal code letters and postal code numbers. If we go with this, I strongly support phasing out the two-letter postal codes and allow states to use whatever abbreviations they want for other things. A state like Cosperica could use Cos. (or whatever) instead of being forced into CO. A state would just be defined for postal codes by the first two numbers. Anything else on the address could be full state name or any other unregulated abbreviation. Just my thoughts on this one. &mdash; [[User:Alessa|Alessa]] <sub>([[User talk:Alessa|talk]])</sub> 04:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
+* B. Unnamed (lower) - elevation 166m
-:My only concern with the CC-#### structure is that each state is restricted to 10,000 individual postal codes, and while that would be more than sufficient for most states, we could run the risk of running short on codes for large states like Cosperica or Alormen, or for densely-populated states like New Carnaby. I’d support a CC-##XX structure where “CC” is the state abbreviation, “##” is a routing number (up to each state), and “XX” can be numbers ''or'' letters, which provides a much larger universe of total postal codes for each state (or city) without requiring a totally new scheme. —[[User:TheMayor|TheMayor]] ([[User talk:TheMayor|talk]]) 14:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
+* C. Ashani - elevation 172m
-::That's brilliant. I actually really like that, and it follows how distribution would work in the real world very well. I've updated proposal three to reflect this potential. That would allow a huge variety of things and even work well in rural areas. For example, all of Missisaukee County, Mennowa could use 29 (routing number) and then 7x. The entire county isn't heavily populated, so it could easily be handled by a single set of codes from -2970 through -297Y. I would suggest that we discourage (rather than mandate) use of I, O, Q, S, or Z in there to prevent confusion with numbers. &mdash; [[User:Alessa|Alessa]] <sub>([[User talk:Alessa|talk]])</sub> 14:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
+* D. Ohunkagan - elevation 178m
+* E. Unnamed (upper-north) - elevation 179m
+* F. Unnamed (upper-south) - elevation 179m
+* G. Sauganash - elevation 188m
+* H. Hanyala - elevation 190m
+* I. Betaouais - elevation 193m
+* J. Amancer - elevation 195m
+The two lakes, Unnamed (upper-north) and Unnamed (upper-south) are a Michigan-Huron type system: hydrologically, the same lake, and therefore the same elevation, but with distinct names/concepts in people's minds. Or maybe they have the same name, but that's not how I have been habitually thinking of them.
+Westhaven is a slightly different case. There has been discussion that it is not part of the same watershed / hydrological system. I would actually prefer that, and I recommend a drainage pattern northward, creating a kind of "heartland watershed" for the Deodeca project. Because of this, it could also have a lower elevation than the nearest Grand Lake. I've settled on this:
+* K. Westhaven - elevation 175m
+The current elevations are now attached to the Lakes' relations with ele= tags. Please don't edit these without first noting consensus to change here in this forum discussion.
+Another point of discussion - we still need to name the two largest lakes, which I've taken to calling "lower" and "upper". I remember quite a bit of discussion about this from a year or two ago, but frankly can't find my notes about it and don't recall where that discussion was recorded. Possibly discord but I thought it had also been recorded in another place (the old wiki?).
+I think the level of "churn" in the ownership of nearby territories is such that expecting to ever have a consensus / quorum on naming the lakes is silly - we should just name them and be done with it. So in comments below, please offer thoughts as to names. We'll have some kind of vote I guess. How about on July 15th?
+Some of the lakes' elevations are already 100% canon - because I've already been maintaining contour files for adjacent territories (Makaska and Ooayatais). Specifically, Unnamed (lower), Ohunkagan, and Unnamed (upper) *cannot be changed*. I'm flexible about the others, but they need to of course "fit in" with the already canon ones. So changes to my proposed elevations need to be well-reasoned, but I welcome them below in comments, too.
+Thanks all! Happy mapping.<blockquote>I think perhaps a slightly larger difference in elevation between Amanecer and Betaouais (J and I) would be reasonable in order to support the existence of the canal as it is currently mapped - perhaps making Amanecer 198m, or 200m would work nicely. This isn't ''necessary'', but I don't think it conflicts with anything else. Aside from that, I agree with Westhaven flowing elsewhere. --[[User:Lithium|Lithium-Ion]] ([[User talk:Lithium|talk]]) 14:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)</blockquote>