By the way, I want to apologize for dumping so many messages in a row onto the list. I've not had a lot of sitting-in-front-of-the-computer time lately because I've been spending a lot of time gathering map data in the field:
I'm ONE rail-trail short of cycling every rail-trail in New York State. Over a hundred of them, around 2800 miles, taking about two months of bicycling if I spent a full 8 hours every day on the trail, but in reality it's been an 11-year-long project. moltonel 3x Combo writes: > One can often assert that something was here even when nothing is left > of that thing. And is nothing is left of that thing, it shouldn't be > mapped. What about point A? What about point B? The *endpoints* do indeed continue to exist, so "nothing is left of that thing" is not true about most dismantled railways. Speaking of housing developments, I earlier pointed to the south end of Cazenovia, where a housing development has an obvious railbed to the north, and an obvious railbed to the south, and in people's backyards, a treeline where the railbed was. Should the map look like this (A)? ___ __ ____ Or should it look like this (B)? ___---__-____ Some people are arguing for A. I argue that B is a better representation of what is there (the underscores) because it includes the dismantled portions (the dashes). -- --my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
