Mike's Railroad Crossing Forum

Couldn't really think of anywhere to post this, I thought Error Reports would be close enough. I've been kind of thinking about this for a while and I was wondering if we should cut down on the amount of pages we create for the site. I think instead of documenting every crossing on a single line or town, we should start document crossings that aren't "everyday crossings". I do realize what I'm saying isn't entirely clear and I also do realize that we're probably not all going to exactly agree on what makes a crossing unique or interesting. But I don't think that every generic modern NS crossing in the Ohio/Indiana countryside needs to be on the site. Lately I've been kind of noticing that the site has been cluttered with crossing pages for crossings that are pretty common and aren't really that special. I personally would rather see more focus on more interesting crossings on the site, and less "everyday crossings" that have pages that look like they were quickly slapped together. Quality not quantity.

I just thought this would be a good thing for us to discuss and I hope this thread doesn't become controversial.

Mike H. actually started doing that. Personally not that big of a fan of the idea.

freebrickproductions wrote:Mike H. actually started doing that. Personally not that big of a fan of the idea.

I just don't see the point in documenting EVERY single crossing though. The site is starting to feel more like a database.

ToledoRailfan wrote:

freebrickproductions wrote:Mike H. actually started doing that. Personally not that big of a fan of the idea.

I just don't see the point in documenting EVERY single crossing though. The site is starting to feel more like a database.

If I recall correctly, this almost killed the site a few years back.

TrickyMario7654 wrote:

ToledoRailfan wrote:

freebrickproductions wrote:Mike H. actually started doing that. Personally not that big of a fan of the idea.

I just don't see the point in documenting EVERY single crossing though. The site is starting to feel more like a database.

If I recall correctly, this almost killed the site a few years back.

I don't think it needs to be VERY strict. But trying to document every single crossing is too much in my opinion.

TrickyMario7654 wrote:

ToledoRailfan wrote:

freebrickproductions wrote:Mike H. actually started doing that. Personally not that big of a fan of the idea.

I just don't see the point in documenting EVERY single crossing though. The site is starting to feel more like a database.

If I recall correctly, this almost killed the site a few years back.

Nah, Mike was going through some tough times and didn't exactly have all the time in the world for the site, so he decided to not accept common setups and do strictly old, "unique", and odd setups.

I was a fan of this because who honestly wants to see pages upon pages of modern 12x24 setups with e-bells haha.

PaulSP wrote:

TrickyMario7654 wrote:

ToledoRailfan wrote:

freebrickproductions wrote:Mike H. actually started doing that. Personally not that big of a fan of the idea.

I just don't see the point in documenting EVERY single crossing though. The site is starting to feel more like a database.

If I recall correctly, this almost killed the site a few years back.

I was a fan of this because who honestly wants to see pages upon pages of modern 12x24 setups with e-bells haha.

Yea. A year and half ago I would've had a different opinion on this but with the site starting to become cluttered with many pages of typical crossings that are almost identical to each other, the site is starting to become less interesting in my opinion. The site is starting to feel more like a crossing database.

ToledoRailfan wrote:The site is starting to feel more like a crossing database.

Wasn't that the point of the site to begin with?

Also, personally, I try to focus on the more interesting set-ups, and from there, go and fill-out the towns with the rest of the set-ups. That's part of the reason it took me 4 years to even complete the NS Memphis District East End, because a lot of the set-ups, especially in Lawrence and Jackson Counties, are pretty modern.

freebrickproductions wrote:

ToledoRailfan wrote:The site is starting to feel more like a crossing database.

Wasn't that the point of the site to begin with?

I wouldn't say so, I'd say it was more of a website to showcase crossings with a blogish type feel with more (for lack of a better term) emotion. Now it kind of feels more like the PUC of Ohio or something like that. I personally would like to see the site return to favoring quality over quantity.

freebrickproductions wrote:

ToledoRailfan wrote:The site is starting to feel more like a crossing database.

Wasn't that the point of the site to begin with?.

Yes and no, it was started originally just as a plain crossing database but evolved over time into a database of more interesting stuff.

I distinctly remember voice chatting with Mike Hickok over Skype browsing Street View with him and more or less making a list of what crossings to go get photos of and what crossings not to get photos of.

ToledoRailfan wrote:I'd say it was more of a website to showcase crossings with a blogish type feel with more (for lack of a better term) emotion.

You got that right, Mike would never hesitate to post his thoughts on the pages he made... Sometimes for better or worst haha.

I remember on some SJVR crossing in Bakersfield that was abandoned for the longest time and eventually had its signals removed, him writing something to the effect of "SVJR removed the signals!!! Not very smart SJVR!!!!" Haha classic overly angry Mike.