On 3/6/12 9:22 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Frederik Ramm<frede...@remote.org> wrote:
I just found the idea of saying "this is a railway - a never-built one, but
a railway nonetheless" a little extravagant.
umm, not never built. never completed. and in this case, a never completed
railway that impacted the course of a war.
Ok, yeah, there is definitely room for debate around how abstract we
allow features in OSM to be. I wouldn't agree with
planned-but-abandoned features being stored except in unusual
circumstances. This kind of issue comes up with route relations in
particular. What defines a "route"? How official does it have to be
before OSM wants to know about it, etc.
In this case, I think it would be generally acceptable to map the
entire train line, even if only certain sections actually underwent
any construction. Obviously there will be a point at which that
becomes ridiculous though: if a train line was planned for 500km, but
only 5 km saw any construction at all, maybe you'd only map whatever
section of track contained that constructed section.
in the case of The Unfinished Railway, it has a place in history, the
National Park Service intends to preserve the sections within the boundary
of the Battlefield, and it is referred to as the Unfinished Railway in
pretty
much all publications discussing the Second Battle of Manassas.
i have only mapped identifiable sections within the area controlled
by NPS, outside of the park the route has been wiped out at least in
part by development pressures, which are quite heavy in that part
of Virginia.
richard
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
