[talk-au] Historical rail lines
stevagewp at gmail.com
Fri Nov 30 00:32:51 GMT 2012
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Matt White <mattwhite at iinet.com.au> wrote:
> Right. So if I delete the mapped rail line that doesn't exist, then
> remap the individual pieces of track, the remaining point and weighbridge,
> three overhead pylon mounts, one remaining station and one cutting that
> remains as historical artifacts, then everyone is cool?
> If it exists on the ground now, it will get mapped. Otherwise, it won't.
Your line of reasoning basically goes "we will only map individual
historical artefacts that are each worth mapping". The reason (IMHO) that
we map a train line like railway=abandoned is to connect lots of little
artefacts and landscape features that individually are too trivial to map.
For example, a slight embankment (normally not something we'd map), in the
context of other abandoned rail features makes sense under a
railway=abandoned. Similarly, a line of trees, or simply the absence of
development. Frequently, the corridors in which abandoned rail lines lie
are still owned by the state. Mapping the railway line makes sense, and is
meaningful to many people: "Our house is on Station St, just the other side
of the old rail line" - even if strictly speaking there is "nothing on the
I have no objections to removing sections that have been built over.
So maybe my position is: "If the former rail line still plays a part as a
landmark or in planning and development, it should be mapped."
Similarly, I'm ok with removing former stations that have completely gone
and been built over, but if their former presence is preserved in some way,
they should be mapped.
It seems we both agree on mapping *the present* but differ in how to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au