Naming Pounds

[Shultzy]

The discussion at [Firhill Pound (Port Dundas Branch - Main Line)] about naming pounds, is shown below.
----
Why has this pound been named, as they are not normally? --- Shultzy
----
There are two parallel routes here - I assume the other is FirHill Road Basin? --- Steve
----
The Port Dundas Branch has two sections, the [Main Line] and the [Firhill Road Basin] line. There is no need to name them as \"pounds\". --- Shultzy
----
I'll talk to Nick about what happens when planning routes -it might actually be totally co-incidental that parallel routes need real places on then.... Not saying this is the case but giving the alternative route a distinct place name might be something that makes sense. --- Steve
----
From the beginning of adding photos - about 2005 - we have collected a lot of useful pictures of bridges (also junctions, locks etc) because they were the points on the canal that were named as places. There are lots of other images that give a good idea of the feel of an area, are between bridges but don't show them. Renaming a marker place that is between two more specific named-places is a way to attach representative images. \"Pound\" is a traditional canally word for water at the same level. Similarly \"Reach\" for rivers - PeterScott
----
Naming places as \"Pound\" or [Possill Road to Spiers Wharf Pound] is not the way to create a place for photos that are between \"real\" places. There must be 1000's of potential \"pounds\" and [Firhill to Applecross Pound] type places on the system which I think would detract from CP being a Canal Route Planner. Perhaps a \"viewport\" place with a CP generated name (like a marker place) which didn't appear in the route listings might be a solution. --- Shultzy
----
I agree with Stefan - if many pounds/reaches featured as full places then the plan would become cluttered with un-necessary detail not relevant to route planning. Photos should be restricted to specific(mainly existing) places of interest and not used to provide a general view of an area.--- Regards Pete St
----
I'd assumed it had been added so you could force canalplan to explicitly plan through it. If was added to be a location for photos then it seems the wrong way to go about it because as has been said it confuses planning.. Maybe there needs to be a discussion over in the discussion forums to bounce ideas round about how we take this forward --- Steve
----
What is the best way to add photos which are between \"real\" places? --- Shultzy
----

[Stephen Atty]

If you accept that real places (such as bridges, locks etc) can have photos that are near by ... so \"X  approaching the lock / bridge\" then we can get round it that way. So \"Apartments overlooking the Canal\" would be fine for anything close to a feature.

Firhill Pound is an odd case - it's quite a significant curve in the canal so there needs to be a point there to keep the map right but there is no obvious name to give it. In other places were we have bends like this we have suitable names for them - for example \"Straight Mile Bend\" which is a bend near to a road with the unusual name of \"Straight Mile\"

[Peter Stockdale]

Not to bother is my suggestion. We are not a photo gallery. If one does create named pounds then the question of how to name and place them becomes problematical.-- Regards Pete Stockdale
----

[Administrator]

To an extent we *are* a photo gallery - anything with over 31,000 photos covering several decades of the waterways is a photo gallery by definition.  People like seeing and adding photos, and there's more I want to do with them over time.

In this particular case, they quite interesting photos and capture the local architecture at a snapshot in time.  Similarly, people might want to put a good non-official mooring in.  

We used to have a similar problem with photos of the insides of tunnels and similar, but the addition of \"features\" fixed that.  

So while I don't see any need to put gratuitous pounds in, I'm reasonably happy when there is nothing else obvious to call them and when they help people enhance the data.  \"Pound\" may not be the best name if they aren't the entire stretch of water between two locks, but in that case I think the exercise is to invent a better name for each particular spot rather than ban things by executive fiat.  We've had \"Reaches\" on the Thames (Maidenhead and Cliveden at least) for ever without any objections.

[Shultzy]

I think my previous suggestion is worth a look.
Creating a \"viewport\" place with a CP generated name (like a marker place) which doesn't appear in the planner route listings might be a solution. Naming them with \"Pound\" in the title can get complicated when the length of the pound on the Wyrley and Essington is 16.5 miles long. This would mean naming them Bridge X to Bridge Y pound.
I agree that we need to encourage the pictures as you say they are a \"a snapshot in time\".