On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 23:14, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> > I agree that it is good example of something on a boundary (assuming that > both "rails completely gone" and "track of former railway is > recognisable"). Do you have some good images showing both? > I didn't map it (somebody else did), but I can observe the path of a former railway because some of the route has the tree-lined hedges typical in this part of the world. Often between such hedges is a farm track, or a road, occasionally a footpath, but there is no highway along this route. It is an otherwise inexplicable pair of tree-lined hedges, or gaps in woodland. With the occasional bridge, embankment and cutting. Yes, you need historical knowledge to figure out what the route was, but you can identify it from aerial imagery. See if you can figure out which bit on the map it is: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.0496/-4.6166 Is the existence of those actual, verifiable features sufficient to justify mapping an abandoned railway as explanation and to deter other mappers from guessing there is a footpath or track where one doesn't exist? Is it sufficient to justify mapping the whole abandoned line, even though it is less obvious along much of the route? I might not map such a line myself, but I'd be very reluctant to remove it. Especially as I suspect there are bridges, culverts, cuttings and embankments along it that still exist but have not yet been mapped. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
