On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wouldn't agree with
> planned-but-abandoned features being stored except in unusual
> circumstances.
>
Key distinction is
planned-but-never-built (county plat book fantasy "roads"),
vs built, used, then abandoned
(subcases: over-grown / reused as bike trail / obliterated);
vs construction started, impact on the ground still quite evident, but
never in service.
The linear feature that influentially crossed the battlefield, with cut and
fill, in the Original Post is historic and still manifest on the ground,
but never achieved status of a working rail-road.
Former Railbeds, whether they never had rails or rails were recycled to
make WW2 battleships, are decidedly peculiar terrain features -- Cut and
fill to make nearly level, with very slow spiral curves. Tagging such an
odd terrain feature's history seems quite reasonable, as those who
don't recognize it for what it was might reasonably ask Why is it Here ?
--
Bill
@n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
