On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Matt White <mattwh...@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? > > Not me. > 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 ground". 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 interpret that. Steve
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
