[Talk-us] railway=abandoned and mapping things that are not there any more?

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Thu Jul 12 20:38:50 BST 2012


Mike N. wrote:
> So they are present, and don't hurt anything.  None of the 
> 'standard maps' will bother to render them.   A railway 
> map could use them if it needed to. I delete them if they 
> go through current buildings or parking lots also.

Yes, that's a sensible attitude.

I think it's also worth noting that "what's on the ground" is slightly in
the eye of the beholder. I'm not really a railway archaeologist, but I do
know quite a bit about old canals. There are places, even in redeveloped
town centres, where the canal seems to be obliterated to the untrained eye;
but if you know what you're looking for, the clues are there to see, even
amongst the car parks. In those circumstances, a =dismantled tag makes
sense.

I guess one railway equivalent is where a bridge across a river has been
removed. It's not "railway=abandoned", it's clearly more than that. But
there are usually bridge abutments still standing on either side, maybe even
some stonework left in the river. Again, "railway=dismantled" seems
appropriate there.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-abandoned-and-mapping-things-that-are-not-there-any-more-tp5716334p5716356.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the Talk-us mailing list