On 13/07/2015 18:14, Andy Allan wrote:
On 13 July 2015 at 14:34, Mike Evans <mi...@saxicola.co.uk> wrote:
It seems to me that the viaduct and the railway are two separate
entities and should mapped as such. Just because an abandoned
railway happens to run on the top of the viaduct is irrelevant in
my opinion.
Exactly. If there was a massive viaduct that used to carry power
cables, it should be shown since it's a massive sodding viaduct, not
because there used to be some cables on it.
The same goes for massive trenches in the ground (i.e. cuttings) and
enormous embankments.
This.
From a general purpose mapping perspective, if you can see it (and
it's big enough to be noteworthy) then it should be mapped, irrespective
of its current or former purpose.
Usage is a separate and orthogonal consideration. Whether a bridge, for
example, is used for a road, a railway, a footbridge or even has no
current use will affect the iconography and colours applied to it. But
it doesn't affect the fact that it's there, and therefore should not
affect the question of whether it appears on the map in the first place.
Mark
--
http://www.markgoodge.uk
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
