Hi Matt, It seems we've reached the point of simply restating our views. I don't think yours represents consensus - but please discuss it on the main OSM talk list if you want.
Steve On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Matt White <mattwh...@iinet.com.au> wrote: > "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:mattwh...@iinet.com.au <mattwh...@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:stevag...@gmail.com <stevag...@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 <mattwh...@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**** > > **** > > ** ** > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
