[Talk-GB] Thrapston viaduct

Mark Goodge mark at good-stuff.co.uk
Tue Jul 14 08:56:02 UTC 2015

On 13/07/2015 18:14, Andy Allan wrote:
> 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.


 From a general purpose mapping perspective, if you can see it (and
it's big enough to be noteworthy) then it should be mapped, irrespective
of its current or former purpose.

Usage is a separate and orthogonal consideration. Whether a bridge, for 
example, is used for a road, a railway, a footbridge or even has no 
current use will affect the iconography and colours applied to it. But 
it doesn't affect the fact that it's there, and therefore should not 
affect the question of whether it appears on the map in the first place.


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list