[talk-au] Historical rail lines

Matt White mattwhite at iinet.com.au
Fri Nov 30 08:10:21 GMT 2012

"Abandoned" makes it sounds like there are tracks in place for the 
length of the line, just no trains running on it.

But that's not the case - in the 4km the line used to run on there are 
11 remaining artifacts, the largest being a station building (old North 
Carlton station), the smallest being a single 4 metre track section in 
Edinburgh gardens, or the one remaining concrete pylon base. They are 
the vestigial traces that need to be mapped. As for the rest, it's a 
mostly a park now with a bike track along it (the bits that aren't are 
houses) ... and that's what it should be mapped as.

On 30/11/2012 6:23 PM, Mark Rennick wrote:
> Matt
> I believe abandoned railway lines should be mapped.
> If it is necessary to have a current physical feature to justify 
> mapping, then the railway formation (cut and fill earth works) 
> generally remain, particularly if the railway reserve has been 
> retained as a rail trail, road or linear park.
> *From:*Matt White [mailto:mattwhite at iinet.com.au]
> *Sent:* Friday, 30 November 2012 7:31 AM
> *To:* 'talk-au'
> *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
> 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.
> Matt
> On 29/11/2012 4:46 PM, Paul Norman wrote:
>     Actually, the slope is slippery. People have made it about old
>     roads. There are people who have mapped old roads where they have
>     been completely developed over and no trace remains.
>     Mapping the traces of an old rail line isn't historical mapping.
>     If there are currently traces there then it's mapping the present.
>     *From:*Steve Bennett [mailto:stevagewp at gmail.com]
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:02 PM
>     *To:* Matt White
>     *Cc:* talk-au
>     *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
>     On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Matt White
>     <mattwhite at iinet.com.au <mailto:mattwhite at iinet.com.au>> wrote:
>         Admin boundaries are a slightly different thing - they may be
>         intangible on the ground, but they are also current. We don't
>         keep historical versions of admin boundaries either
>         The problem with the historical thing is that to my mind, it
>         is a slippery slope. There's a park near me that is currently,
>         well, a park. But I know that it was previously a quarry, and
>         then a rubbish tip/landfill, cos there is a sign saying so.
>         But I certainly wouldn't tag the parks as a quarry or
>         landfill, because it isn't. It's a park....
>     IMHO this slope is not slippery. Every time the "do we map
>     historical stuff" debate comes up, it's always about train lines.
>     That is, we're still at the top of this supposedly slippery slope,
>     waiting to slide down. Somehow, train lines are different. They
>     just are.
>     To reiterate what I said before in different words: we're not
>     mapping "the 1890 route of a long forgotten train line". We're
>     mapping the vestigial traces of a former line. And I'm absolutely
>     not proposing to record any information about when lines opened or
>     closed, or were re-routed or whatever.
>     Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121130/a2231062/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list