Talk:Rail trail
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
Contents |
[edit] Virtual vs. Tangable Dec 28, 06
I believe that railbanking and rail trails are two distinct entities, there are a number of undeveloped railbanked right-of-ways, that are not trails at all, mearly "saved" lines. A right of way dosn't become a trail until a surface (natural or otherwise) is established, and public access can be established.
Rail trails may be on railbanked rights of way under 16 USC 1247(d) (generally implemented by STB during an abandonment proceeding), or on federally granted rights of way under 43 USC 912/913, as modified, or on rights of way acquired in fee or by eminent domain. Railbanking generally means preserving for future rail reactivation. Because of increased use of 1247(d) for trail formation, and because it assumes preservation for rail reactivation, the term railbanking has become confused with meaning all rail trails. Charles Montange 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)15:55
[edit] West Virginia Rail Trails
I've added coverage to West Virginia's rail trails (there were a LOT more than I had previously thought), and will be writing seperate articles for each in the upcoming days. Seicer (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Main article and list
Do we really need two seperate pages devoted to this topic? I noticed about an hour ago the non-exhaustive list, but I'm debating on whether or not the list is needed when it can be effectively combined on the main article page - with edits done to bring it up to par. An example would be to introduce subheaders for each state under 'United States'. Seicer (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- It also seems logical, and probably the best route to reduce the main article's size, to combine the list on the main article page with that on the list page. In short, keep the list of completed and proposed trails on the list page only and feature a link to it from here. Seicer (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rail Trails and Rail Banks - Best Not to Merge
I note that there is a discussion currently about whether to merge the articles on rail trails and rail banks. While this makes sense in the USA, there never has been a rail bank in the UK where, in most cases, the closure of a railway has been followed by piecemeal sell-offs which have broken up the linear integrity of the route. Since the mid 1990s, national and local government has taken a more constructive approach, often seeking to preserve unwarranted rail routes as rail trails; but there is still no national rail bank. Therefore, I would recommend keeping the articles separate, but ensuring that there are good links between the two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.43.20.95 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Proposed renaming of "Category:Rail trails" to "Category:Rail trails in the USA"
Reasons: 1. This category has been meticulously collected, and contains exclusively (or almost?) american trails. 2. The category will otherwise grow to include all trails in the world, becoming way too big. - I propose we rename this category for the USA only. Rail trails in other countries can have their own categories, eg. "Rail trails in the United Kingdom". The main article "Rail trails" can stay as it is, as it describes all trails globally. Bards 04:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 120 feet wide
Eh? I've only seen rail to trails in various parts of the USA, but never any with as much as 50 feet of paved width. None of the photos in the article show anything that wide, either. Has someone perhaps accidentally mixed a pavement discussion with an easement measure? Jim.henderson 13:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- When I read Rail_trail#Typical_features the 120 feet reads as easement to me. The two sentences preceding the sentence "Rail trails are usually about 9 to 27 metres (30 to 120 feet) wide" are about land ownership and purchase. The next sentence is about covering the surface so I agree there is room for improvement of the paragraph and the addition of some reference to validate the claims would also be helpful. Jeepday (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- But, they are separate paragraphs, and the width sentence is in the pavement paragraph, not the land paragraph. And 27 meters is 100 feet, not 120. So, are old RR RoW usually wider in foot coutrhies than in metric ones? Alas, knowing little of railroad history and less of RoW customs, I cannot correct. Jim.henderson 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see, you are correct about the paragraphs. When I looked I did not notice the paragraph change thinking it was a formatting issue because of the left side picture, I just moved the picture to the right. I will do some research and see if I can clean up your concerns and put some references in there. Jeepday (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- But, they are separate paragraphs, and the width sentence is in the pavement paragraph, not the land paragraph. And 27 meters is 100 feet, not 120. So, are old RR RoW usually wider in foot coutrhies than in metric ones? Alas, knowing little of railroad history and less of RoW customs, I cannot correct. Jim.henderson 14:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2 kinds
There are 2 kinds of rail trails, rails to trails and rails with trails. How about moving most of the content of this article (back?) to Rails to trails? --Una Smith (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe we need so many separate WP pages for these types of trails. The function of the corridor is the same and both require the same easement. Having all content nicely in one page will be sufficient and allow us to better expand the article. I will propose a merger in one week. .:DavuMaya:. 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good luck. You haven't convinced me. RTT and RWT have very different trail design requirements, administration, and policy issues. However, this article might serve as an umbrella article covering both kinds; at present, its POV is heavily slanted toward RTT. --Una Smith (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible then we do not need the umbrella article and simply just have one or the other? Thus we could rename this back to rail to trail, have "rail trail" redirect to that, then include a Disambig blurb "if you are looking for RWT click here." .:DavuMaya:. 03:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, because RWTs are rail trails, not some other thing. We don't play favorites here. I think either 1 article, Rail trail to include RTT and RWT, or 2 articles (RTT and RWT) plus a disambiguation page. At this point, Rail trail pretty much ignores RWTs, and that's fine by me provided it is moved back to its old title, where it belongs. --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible then we do not need the umbrella article and simply just have one or the other? Thus we could rename this back to rail to trail, have "rail trail" redirect to that, then include a Disambig blurb "if you are looking for RWT click here." .:DavuMaya:. 03:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good luck. You haven't convinced me. RTT and RWT have very different trail design requirements, administration, and policy issues. However, this article might serve as an umbrella article covering both kinds; at present, its POV is heavily slanted toward RTT. --Una Smith (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Segregated cycle facilities
The article lead now defines "rails to trails" as segregated cycle facilities. Those are roads, tracks, paths or marked lanes which are designated for the preferential or exclusive use of cyclists. Rail trails usually are not segregated cycle facilities. --Una Smith (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am referencing the bottom of the article of segregated cycle facilities "[edit] Cycle facilities in promoting recreational cycling" and the sentence "In the US, the Rails-to-Trails program seeks to convert abandoned railroad beds to recreational trails." And if you refer back to discussions of the article's naming, segregated cycle facilities is the term that gained common consensus of any pathway dedicated to bicycling. Thus under this "global" definition, rail trails are segregated cycle facilities. And seeing that no one has challenged the inclusion of rail trail text into the original article would suggest consensus on this as well. So it is not suggested they are, they indeed ARE segregated cycle facilities, only that in America this is not the universal term. 75.72.165.211 (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- 75.72.165.211, from the context of that text, you assume the program seeks to convert those beds to segregated cycle facilities? That is not the case. I'll fix that article. Thanks for pointing out the potential for confusion. --Una Smith (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
