On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Russ Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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). >
I've worked on "rails to trails" projects where the physical trace of the railbed was subsumed by fences, lines of trees and (in once case) a swimming pool. But the legal right of way still existed. Those homeowners were using property they did not own tax free: encroaching. Once the encroachments were cleared, the railroad was turned into a trail (connecting A to B). Thus something existed of the railway even through the backyards: the legal right of way, the arsenic and lead, and ultimately the desire to reconnect the bits.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
