[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Jun 12 08:11:49 UTC 2018


On 12/06/18 17:53, Philip Barnes wrote:

>
> On 11 June 2018 22:57:13 BST, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12 June 2018 at 00:21, Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 11 June 2018 14:58:59 BST, Kevin Kenny
>> <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> For example my town has a largeish building,
>>>> They're not necessarily 'small' buildings, the way the Wiki
>> suggests:
>>> I agree they are not small, the one in my small town is the same size
>> as
>>> the swimming pool building.
>>>
>>> Phil (trigpoint)
>>>
>> Getting away from mapping for a moment :-), but talking "telephone
>> exchanges" internationally.
>>
>> Are all of your's the same as most (definitely the bigger ones) in
>> Australia, & built on absolute prime real estate? :-)
>>
>> Exchanges near here are almost always in the centre of town, usually on
>> a
>> main road & frequently the busiest intersection - one even has ocean
>> views!
>>
> Pretty much, the Shrewsbury one is on prime land in the town centre with views over the River Severn.
>
They would have run as a star network - out from a point. The more central the point the less distance the wires run,
the less poles or underground trenches it took (I think the trenches came later when the number of wires on the poles became too much), the less it cost.
So they took land around the central pint of the then population.
The price of land back then was not so much especially when your the government and own bits of it already.

The size of the building would reflect the number of well off people (those who could afford a phone back then, though some may have been built later) ..
  and the self importance that the officials took of 'their' district.




More information about the Tagging mailing list