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:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
