Patrick Feller

The photos shown are of the FM 457 bridge:

http://bridgehunter.com/tx/matagorda/131580060501016/

I know because I took them.

I agree, Art.

Is one allowed to exhibit multiple personalities? That is: Is the display on the board of multiple personalities by one person a trassgrassion?

Okay, one of Doug's personalities, now you've done it!

I was reading your post that began: "True It also says forgive those that steal also his trassgrassions and God will forgive you and your trassgrassions Patrick or Jesus will not forgive you for refusing to let it go..."

The post was silly, but I was doing fine with it until the "let it go" part and now that dang song is in my head and I can never forgive your for that...

another trassgrassion, whatever that is...

But how does that get your other personality to give proper credit to those photographers and copyright holders he's ripping off in producing the hordes of sketches he's unloaded on this website?

What about: Thou shalt not steal?

Steve, Doug and associated personalities:

What I'd like, at the very least, is for whichever personality is in charge at the time to start giving proper attribution to the sources for all those rough sketches that one of your personalities insists on showering upon us.

As to your religious advice, if its anything like the quality of your rough sketches...

Heaven help us.

Steve Tunder, I'll burn that bridge when I come to it.

Then he is continuing to fail to give proper attribution!!!

But, Steve Tunder, how do you feel about the whole bridge sketch thing?

Douglas Butler, you said "Keep coming with the critics not bothered"

Does that also mean that you will continue not to bother to properly credit the sources of the photographs on which your rough sketches are based? Any serious academic, at whatever level of education, recognizes that such credit is basic.

The bottom line is that, in every case, the attempted sketches are extremely loosely drawn "copies" of photographs, and posted without attribution. The photographers, who did the real work, and the owners of copyrights, are not in any way represented.

Some time ago, Douglas Butler was posting photographs without attribution. When James learned of that he had to spend considerable time locating and deleting those. It could be argued that Mr. Butler should have been penalized for that.

Such unattributed use hurts the credibility of what is an important website. I'll leave it to others to confirm any legal liability

Yes, the simple fact that the sketches are not at all technical drawings is important and others are absolutely correct in stating that (especially in the case of these crude sketches) the sketching process misses important detail and context.

There, though, lies peril. Many years ago I worked as a structural draftsman, just before CAD became the norm. While I might be inclined to push to delete the sketches based on quality alone, I am aware that there could then develop a tendency to judge original photographs on the same terms. Who makes that determination, Anonymous?

Much as I'd like to see a bridge tunnel or a trestle tunnel, this trestle and tunnel appear to be two entirely separate structures, functionally and structurally independent of each other.

That is a great picture of the bridge in a flood. Though faded, the color is still there in the print. Do you have any idea what film was used for the 1923 photo?

And the Piano Bridge in Fayette County, Texas got its name from the sound made when driving over its decking.

While they may not be a majority of listings, a lot of bridges do indeed have commonly used names, many of which will not fit naming conventions being discussed. In Houston here, for example, the many bridges over Buffalo Bayou do have commonly used names, many using the name of the street crossing the bayou, some the railroad, some use variations of abbreviations for a railroad historically associated with the bridge, and some of those do indeed look like reporting marks. These names are reflected in articles and books on Houston. Quite a few have names on plaques or markers. In someone's enthusiasm for reporting marks, many of these genuinely commonly used names were removed or changed.

Houston's Jensen Drive bridge over Buffalo Bayou is identified on its plaque as the Hill Street Bridge. With the alternate name provided in the listing, both names are recorded. The listing's overview provides other critical information: "Haunched steel stringer bridge over Buffalo Bayou on South Jensen Drive".

Do we want to get too formulaic with these names? Are we risking seeing a recognized historic name for a bridge, a commonly used name that may be reflected on a plaque on the bridge, replaced by the formulaic name?

Let's not forget that the overview does an important job for someone searching for a bridge or trying to identify one.

Are we risking seeing one rigid formula replaced by another, when neither formula reflects the bridge's commonly used or historic names.