Re: Railway map of Victoria online

[David Langley <del@ancc.com.au>]

MarkBau1 wrote:

> I came up against this name condumdrum when I did my map. One of the Brighton
> stations has had 3 or 4 different names in its history, I'm sure there are
> others.
>
> Unless you want to go into detailed explanations for each stations, like the
> "Jungways" does I believe you have one of two options. Call it by its first
> name or by its last name. It is historically inaccurate to use some names in
> their original form and use more modern names for others.

If you draw a map and date it as at a certain date, then you could use all the
names current at that time but if it is part of a series showing development then
it would be OK to use just the current or most recent name. But the use of names
that were/are wrong e.g. Old Tallangatta, is most definitely incorrect.


> Ballarat, the town, did have 2 A's but they dropped one A eons  ago. If
> Ballarat has yuppiefied its name back to Ballaarat, all well and good but to
> the railway it is still Ballarat, thats the name that belongs on a railway map.

The 1865 WTT refers to Ballarat not Ballaarat. I believe that the railways have
never used Ballaarat. It is a civic name only.

> Bridgewater must have had an influx of yuppies because they are now calling
> themselves "Bridgewater on Loddon" (I'm not sure if anyone actually uses the
> new name) On a railway map it must, for accuracy, be called simply Bridgewater.

Very definitely.

David Langley.