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] *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 mailto: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
Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
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
Re: [talk-au] Historical rail lines
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] 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] 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
