[Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Mon Jul 13 17:14:09 UTC 2015


On 13 July 2015 at 14:34, Mike Evans <mikee at saxicola.co.uk> wrote:

> It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate entities and should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned railway happens to run on the top of the viaduct is irrelevant in my opinion.

Exactly. If there was a massive viaduct that used to carry power
cables, it should be shown since it's a massive sodding viaduct, not
because there used to be some cables on it.

The same goes for massive trenches in the ground (i.e. cuttings) and
enormous embankments. But unfortunately every conversation about these
actually-here features gets dragged into some sort of
used-to-be-a-railway-here conversation, and used-to-be-a-railway-here
is not, in itself, enough of a reason to draw features on
openstreetmap-carto - any more than used-to-be-a-power-cable or
used-to-be-a-sewer or used-to-be-a-hedge-here or
used-to-be-a-building-here.

Thanks,
Andy



More information about the Talk-GB mailing list