Highways and Motorways

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-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 16

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-25 75

I wish to request for FS-25. FS-25 connects AR120-73 with Apawiland (my state), continues into Riopoderos, and could possibly have its southern terminus at AR120-45. I wish to do so as the northern state could be some sort of corridor into the mountains like Apawiland, and maybe AR120-73 could be a former agricultural state. Also, it's the quickest way to get from Apawiland or Sierra to Alormen. Feel free to extend this route or to cut it off at some parts. IiEarth (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2020 (CET)

FS-25 is denied at this location since it doesn’t come close to fitting into the national numbering system. If you want it to be FS-75, however, that would be permitted. -TheMayor (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2020 (CET)

Yes, that would be fine. Sorry for the inconvenience.

IiEarth (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2020 (CET)

FS-99

After consulting with mappers in the northwest, the following changes have been made:

FS-87 has been removed and is now available as a secondary route.
FS-91 has been rerouted between north of Jundah-Stuart and Los Reyes on the former FS-87 alignment.
FS-90 west of Los Reyes is now planned for an inland alignment through Sasepcro and ending in Esperanza.
FS-99 has been assigned as a new primary route between north of Jundah-Stuart and Los Reyes via the coastal cities in Cosperica.

-TheMayor (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2020 (CEST)

FS-85

Requesting reuse of the previously-approved FS-85 number for a similar but different corridor through northern Seneppi. The planned FS-85 corridor would follow the Fort Braxton Post Road motor trail from Wallawaukee, northwest through Seneppi through Finch Hill and into Gleason, then into Minnonigan along the Jonas River, then into Wahauja near Thedford and on to FS-91 near Fort Braxton. However, following approval of the corridor, the Wahauja DOT would not follow through with upgrading the road in that state, leaving the only motorway portions between Gleason and Wallawaukee, with additional segments through northern Minnonigan. This request is to use FS-85 only between Gleason and Wallawaukee, with long-term plans to still continue the route to Fort Braxton in the more distant future. -TheMayor (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2021 (CEST)

Approved. --Yoyo21 (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2021 (CEST)

FS-67

Per discussion with regional partners and ItsTybear, we requested approval of FS-67 between Des Nonnes and Harmegido via Plainsburgh. Although I could unilaterally approve it as regional coordinator, I have notified the other regional coordinators to ensure no objections. — Alessa _(talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

FS-3, 65, and 74

Motorway numbering plan for Alormen, as of 29 Dec 2023.

As part of a statewide motorway numbering plan, the following new motorway routes are proposed:

FS-3, a new "historic" motorway that would branch off of FS-1 somewhere between Massodeya City and Huntington that crosses Alormen northwest-southeast to, on a macro scale, connect Huntington to the Asperic Ocean at Puerto Eloisa.
FS-65, a connection between Andreapolis and the current junction of FS-71 and FS-50.
FS-74, a renumbering of the current FS-80 northeast of Andreapolis, with FS-80 being truncated at Alamar. It's also possible that the current motorway in this location will be downgraded to a trunk; however, the FS-74 designation should still be reserved regardless in case of a future upgrade.

Additionally, FS-70 would be unofficially "extended" via Randalia routes M1 and M2 to form a contiguous extra-territorial route to connect Alormen with the Northeast. --TheMayor (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

FS-28

I am proposing a new motorway that would largely replace Minnonigan State Route 930 from FS-30 near Janestown, MN to the Deodeca border west of Carbonridge, MN. As the nearest east-west route south of FS-30, FS-28 would fit the larger numbering system. --TheMayor (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Approved. — Alessa _(talk) 01:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

FS-93

I am (re-)requesting FS-93 for the route between Ondassagam and the Nishaukee Falls to serve the Deodeca border. This route can also be extended into AR120-56 for a future mapper. --TheMayor (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Approved. — Alessa _(talk) 15:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Motor Trails

Please use the the forums to collaborate on motor trails and discussions related to those.

Railways

Freight Corridor Workspace

To help guide coordination on freight rail corridors, please use this table. Note that, unlike the motorways network, parallel and competing routes are welcome. Only one main line per company, please. In the future, some lines and companies will be consolidated to form national companies. Company names listed below will be considered entries for potential national railroad company names; however, the final list of major national railroad company names will be determined by consensus. Except for "Completed" corridors, all corridors listed below are considered non-official.

Company Name	Status	Northern or Western Terminus	Southern or Eastern Terminus	Relation (optional)	Lead Organizer	Confirmed States	States in Discussion	Potential States	Notes	Last Updated
Minnonigan Central Railroad	Discussion	Port Massehanee, AL	Lake City, MN		TheMayor	MN	AQ, TJ, AL	71, TE, OQ	Discussing alignments in Tejoma and Osaquoya.	2020-05-03
Sauganash and Northern Railroad	Discussion	Jundah-Stuart, TA	Lake City, MN		TheMayor	MN	CL, TA	WJ	Discussing alignments in Clamash and Tauhon.	2020-05-03
Great Eastern and Stanton Folkstone Railway Company	partially established before recent debate			GESF^∈^⊾ (#FC6A0C)	mstr	AL, AS, CP, CR, EM, FT, NC, OK, SN, WK, WM		WS, 31, NP, 48, MI, MN, 59		2020-05-08
Stanton Folkstone Railway	partially established before recent debate	Wallawaukee, SN	Folkstone, OK		mstr					2020-05-08
Great Eastern Railway	partially established before recent debate	Port Massehanee, AL	Hope Harbor, AS		mstr				via Folkstone, OK	2020-05-08
Compass and Western Railroad	Construction; Some Eastern Portions complete. Relations have been established.	Not yet Confirmed (As of now, WS; Anticipating Sierra)	Not yet Confirmed (AR, PQ, DI area)	C&WR	Zytik	NC, PQ, AR, GL, WS, NP	CD, DI, MN	OS, RP, SR,	Objective is Sierra to Arghenna/Penquisset/DI	2020-06-14
Scantuck & Southern Railroad	Complete	Waltmore, NC	Divinity's Grace, CR	S&S	Whateversusan	NC, CR				5/9/2020
Lakes, Mennowa, and Northern Railroad	Construction (conceived and partially constructed before recent debates)	Unnamed planned city in northern Tennewa (northwest), ME/OQ border	Lake City, MN (southwest); Minneuka, ME (east)	LM&N^∈^⊾	Alessa	ME, MI, MN, SN, TE (unbuilt), WA, WK	AQ, OQ	34, 44, 48, 52, AL, TJ, WM		6/13/2020
Hope Harbor Railroad	far from complete	Hartford, AS (west); Newport, AS (north)	Ampersand, AS (east)	HHRR	Marcello	AS	none	none	via Hope Harbor, AS Note: this is an independent (Class 2) regional. Please do not re-organise or incorporate in larger entity !	2020/04/06
Astrantia Northwestern	far from complete	East Vermouth, AS (west); Greenboro, AS (north)	Newport, AS (south/east)	ANWRR	Marcello	AS	none	none	via Hartford, AS Note: this is an independent (Class 2) regional. Please do not re-organise or incorporate in larger entity !	2020/04/06
Newport Harbor Belt	far from complete	Newport, AS	Newport, AS	NHBRR	Marcello	AS	none	none	Note: this is an independent (Class 3) local. Please do not re-organise or incorporate in larger entity !	2020/07/05
Walkegan and Eastern Seneppi Railroad	partially complete	Gleason, WK (northwest); city in NE Walkegan (north)	Foxbend/Southern Seneppi (south)	W&ES	Ernestpcosby	SN, WK	none	AR120-52	via Wallawaukee, SN Note: this is an independent (Class 2) regional. Please do not re-organise or incorporate in larger entity !	6/12/2020
Great Western and Asperic	Extant in part, being worked on	Jundah, Tauh. (W)/Mojaca, Cosp. (N)	Minneuka, Menn. (S)/Jericho, Tej. (E)	GW&A	Brunanter	Sra., Menn., Temp.	-	Tej., Sra., Apa., Tauh., Cosp., (-82/-74)		6/14/2020

I deliberately added two regional railroads to the above to avoid them to be 'eaten up' by larger initiatives. That already happened in part, actually, without asking permission. I sympathise with collaborative efforts, but one of the reasons I joined the AR120 initiative is that I wanted to build some regionals. Politely asking for trackage rights might work, however ;-) --Marcello (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2020 (CEST)

One of the ongoing challenges of the AR120 project is balancing any "first-come-first-served" initiatives (that inevitably end up with a "race" to do something before someone else does and ends up pushing out any future mappers from participation) and actually getting things done. No one else should be mapping in your state without your permission, of course, so the point of this exercise is to get more regional coordination going between neighboring states to get some of these corridors mapped. That said, I think the FSA will have significantly more liberal trackage rights policies between the various railroads than what occurs in the U.S., so please don't feel "left behind" on any of this. -TheMayor (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2020 (CEST)

No hardship. We talked it all out. I (Hope Harbor RR) have granted (bridge traffic) trackage rights to MSTR (GESR). But how to map that properly ?-Marcello (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2020 (CEST)

There is a large overlap in S&S and GESR in Upstate Culpepper. Both are marked in a relation to the same track. What would that signify ? Double ownership ? Trackage or haulage rights given by one (who?) to another (who ??) ? Susan and MSTR quarrelling ? Just us all trying out what to do ?

Standardized relation usage for railways in the FS

It would be beneficial to assemble railroad lines (all ways between two destinations) in a relation (one for north/eastbound and one for west/southbound?, separately for freight and passenger rail if needed) and create corridors, etc. with relations consisting of these relations. Are there any proposals how to do this without significant effort and simple access (where/how to list them?)?--Mstr (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

see also the documentation: route=railway, route=train. --Mstr (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

I’ve been using the recommended tags on OGF:Federal States/Railways when mapping new railways or altering older railways, but I think while we’re still determining national corridors (see above) tagging relations on a national level is still a bit premature. You are welcome to get a head start in the areas you’re mapping, though. -TheMayor (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

Thank you for your generous offer! Spending much effort to create relations no one uses makes no sense for me. So if there is no effort to debate basic requirements/standards and provide a "how to do" what is it worth to list "corridors" and roleplay history of companies? Unfortunately, the corridor workspace rather looks like a new version of Railroad Tycoon than discussing how to complement the map. For me, it would be nice to get ideas how to organize these issues better (from the beginning on). If no one is interested in the mapping behind it, okay, continue playing.--Mstr (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2020 (CEST)

I agree with you Mstr. There isn’t being enough to justify wiki freight on the actual map. Recently I have been pushing for the development of more freight infrastructure and I think that all things should be mapped with relations. (BTW see my Sandbox where I have displayed different railways including ArchRail and Compass and Western Freight on Multimaps)I agree tagging should be Standardized, and the only thing I would change is that I do not think it matters to tag both directions on a line, as many times trains travel in a given direction not on the same track, especially in freight (at least in my experience) so I have instead 1 relation for each routing that includes both directional services. I have been trying to coordinate freight infrastructure with several states including New Carnaby, Penquisset, Arghenna,Gilliad, Washaukee, and Nipewa. For now I have done the mainline tracks and over the next weeks I will be adding the sidings, yards, and some industrial areas as well as a connection to some seaboard ports. I would love to collaborate with you on these things to make it the best that it can be, if you want. If FSA leadership is not willing to take the initiative I suppose some of us can at least try. —Zytik (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2020 (CEST)

For what it's worth, I think the work Zytik has done with the Compass & Western railroad -- specifically, coming up with a vision for the primary corridor and working with each stateowner in said corridor to get the railway mapped -- is a successful model that we all should consider emulating to create additional freight rail routes throughout the FSA that will eventually be used to create the major freight railroad companies of the country. I also agree with Zytik in that mapped relations for freight railroads should be bidirectional, as some stretches of rail will be single-tracked, especially outside of the denser areas of the FSA.

To be clear, I appreciate the work that both mstr and Zytik have done so far to help create integral parts of our national freight rail network in the FSA. It is my goal to empower other FSA mappers to create additional freight rail connections (and companies) elsewhere in our shared nation that we can use to build the complex, robust rail network that the FSA deserves, and I hope I can rely on the expertise and experience that both of you have in getting more mappers involved. -TheMayor (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2020 (CEST)

I checked etensively on OSM at specific locations both in the USA and Canada, and could not find a coherent mapping for trackage- and haulage rights. What do we do ? —Marcello (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2020 (CEST)

We will have to determine how we want to standardize things for the FSA. In the meantime my recommendation would be to tag each way based on the owner of that track, and then add route relations for each company. Wherever a route relation exists where the operator doesn’t match the way’s tag, we can assume that indicates trackage rights. But this will be an important point of discussion in the near future. -TheMayor (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2020 (CEST)

Adding separate relations for each line, infrastructure owner, operator and trains to a track makes it extremely complicated to modify the mapping later on due to the large number of relations. While the pros and cons of different concept are an ongoing discussion in the osm community, it might be a different situation here: Please keep in mind that we are not osm where the real situation is fixed and mapping does not fluctuate or drastically change! In addition, if ways are not split into logical sections (what I have seen usually they are not!), it is impossible to add any meaningful relation without modifying the map. This should be avoided. Placing a route relation on logical track sections (from the beginning on) solves both problems. These relations can easily be added to network, company, train, each other relation (relations in another relation, not ways in a relation!), are extremely simple to maintain once they are created (very important!), very flexible, no modification of the map to place a new route needed. Only infrastructure ownership should be directly mapped on the physical track.--Mstr (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2020 (CEST)

Technical details

gauge 1435

really you will tag all rails with 1435 mm? All rails ARE 1435 mm, if no other information is tagged --Histor (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2019 (CEST)

It depends on, usally it is tagged, but at the moment this tag does not seem to be that relevant. It can be added later on without much effort.--Mstr (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

platform lenght

< 300 m for some platforms - I ask myself, what trains there stop. If one wagon ist - let us say - 25 m, then Washington has place for only 9 (and one for the locomotive). What is with Elvis Mystery Train: "Train I ride, 16 coaches long...". Til now I construct platforms for long distance railways with 400 m (15 coaches and loco') --Histor (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

I know some Amtrak trains with 5-7 coaches or less, the Acela Express has 200 m, so short platforms seem to be usual.--Mstr (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

Less-busy stations can have shorter platforms because not all coaches open at each station. If Amtrak is our model, conductors manually open and close the train doors at each stop, and they usually have announcements on approach to the station regarding which coaches will be opening. -TheMayor (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

On my short ride from Newark Airport to New York Penn' station with New Jersey Link last year the conductor did with my 9 $ ticket this and that and I ask me, for what and why. Indeed, he was a friendly man, but the efficience? So for mapping we can learn, that at smaller stations the platforms are short. Can the a station like this be realistic? [1] --Histor (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

fright train waiting tracks

Can it be helpful to discuss about this? In Germany since 1900 this tracks are long 700 m. What with the FSA? Do we need it there, that slow freight trains can wait for faster passenger trains? Or shall the passanger train run after the freight train in the same slow way? I fear, it is so. --Histor (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

We have to talk about the max. freigth train length, but freight trains NEVER wait for passenger trains since usually they have priority (and there are no passenger trains).--Mstr (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

The best-case (longest) siding on a single-track main line would probably be something like this, about 3 km. This siding was recently upgraded in Illinois for Amtrak’s increase to 110mph service on the Chicago-St. Louis line, which is a busy freight line with five round-trip daily passenger trips. -TheMayor (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

Single-track mainline. O.k. - what potential given away. One thing is positiv: I have not to map long sidings --Histor (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

Thank you mstr!

Just wanted to briefly say thank you to mstr for getting this page up and running. -TheMayor (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2019 (CEST)

Class I Railroads

This was a very quick sketch (which is why it's in Paint) but here's one option for six Class I freight railroads in the FSA and a possible network. Names and routes are all up for debate, but I think we should start by limiting the number of Class I railroads to a manageable number (this sample uses six, or seven if there's enough interest in an additional north-south line between the central river and the eastern mountains). -TheMayor (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2019 (CEST) File:MN-FSA ClassI.png

I'm not totally sure, but I think it would be possible for competing railroad companies to avoid connecting with each other unless they have to. In areas served by two or three companies, I think it would be interesting to see how these areas are mapped.

Finally, I'm interested in seeing how the railroad companies choose their routes within the states. Will companies 'bid' on existing railroad lines and facilities? If a state has some well mapped rail infrastructure, maybe it would attract more companies to want to operate within the state? Just a thought! ---PColumbus73 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2019 (CEST)

Unlike the roads, I'm building my rail lines in a historical manner, going with the first, earlier routes now and adding to them as the rail network expands. Some may go away/become abandoned as more modern routes are added. I also definitely imagine that several companies may serve a single route (versus individual lines per company early on). Brunanter (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2019 (CEST)

Ports

Should certain ports have a certain coverage area? For instance, the ports within the Stanton-Ann'harbor-Warwick metro area could be the busiest ports on the East Coast and serve a massive portion of the FSA, however, a port at Anne Abbey would serve a smaller region, consisting primarily of neighboring states? ---PColumbus73 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2019 (CEST)

Ports should be somewhat self-selected based on topography, given that large coastal cities would have needed a safe harbor for ships to begin with. That said, this is OGF, so that’s not really an actual limitation. How far inland each port serves should be based on the port’s infrastructure (highways, railways, etc.) so mappers of the largest ports need to commit to have plenty of landside mapping to function. -TheMayor (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2019 (CEST)

Help & Advisors

Is there anyone who specializes in realistic railways who might be willing and able to give advice to others about designing realistic rail lines? I know I could use assistance in creating realistic railyards. ---PColumbus73 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2019 (CEST)

I have some experience, but when in doubt, just explore Chicago on OSM for rail yard inspiration: Clearing Yard, Cicero Yard, Global II, and Schiller Park Yard are good freight examples; Western Avenue and 14th Street are good passenger coach yard examples. -TheMayor (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2019 (CEST)

Theres also Eklas to help as well. Check his railway tutorials.--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2019 (CEST)

Updated Zone Map

2021-12-21 Version

Submitted for review is an updated railway zone map, since there have been several changes in the FSA since the last sketch. Major differences:

The Alormen Zone now wraps along the coast to include Alamar and San Pascual.
Since Wilthamshire and Caroline have been merged, Wilthamshire is now part of the Northeast Zone, with the extreme southwest corner remaining in the Mid-Ardentic Zone to maintain the existing system on the Massodeya City-Huntington corridor.
State boundaries have been updated to current versions.

Any other thoughts or comments on this update? -TheMayor (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while since we established this system. Can you remind me where the need of the map, and the company system at large, came from?--Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The current system came about in summer 2020, based on the advisory vote about railways, and then the system was developed, voted on, and passed 31-2. Documentation is available here. —TheMayor (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as an updating of the older map, I think this is a fair, balanced approach. — Alessa _(talk) 19:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed.--Fluffr Nuttr (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Aviation

Collab talk:Federal States/Transportation