Talk:Norwood Tunnel

Categories

The categories "Canals in England" and "Tunnels in the United Kingdom" have been removed from this article on the grounds of redundancy. The counter argument is that an article needs to be advertised in as many relevant categories as possible so that the maximum number of interested parties can find it. Instead of continuing to revert other editor's changes over and again I have opened this issue for discussion here. Martin Cordon 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue is already being discussed on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-ordinates

Just to lay out my reasons for restoring Andy's table which gave co-ordinates for the two tunnel portals as well as the mid-point, and to explain why this case is different from the Tinsley viaduct case:

• In the case of the Tinsley viaduct, six sets of co-ordinates were given over a 1km distance, and the closeness of the locations was one of the main reasons cited for them being unnecessary. In this case, only three sets of co-ordinates are given over a 2km distance.
• In the Tinsley tunnel case, the locations being referenced are all clearly visible on a map or an aerial photo. In the Norwood tunnel case, the underground length of the tunnel is of course invisible from an aerial photo and is not marked on the OS maps; the tunnel portals are also not obvious either from an aerial photo or a map - the point where a marked stretch of water ends on a map might be the tunnel portal or might be the point where the mappers deemed a disused and overgrown canal to be no longer worth indicating as a waterway.

--VinceBowdren 11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with VinceBowdren. Keep your argument at Tinsley Viaduct. Martin Cordon 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)