Jump to content

Historical Wooden Bridges


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Yes, I know, there are several categories into which many, possibly the majority, of wooden bridges may be accepted.

That's not really the point, which is that a great many historic bridges in my corner of the world, and hopefully yours, have a supporting structure constituted primarily, or almost completely, of wood. Many old and historical wooden truss, girder and trestle road and railroad bridges still exist in North America and other lands, some of which may not exist decades from now. Waymarks of these symbols of our heritage may ultimately be the last surviving memorials to these iconic structures.

 

I have, off and on, given consideration to this potential category for several years. What prompted my raising the issue at this time was the posting of a wooden truss bridge several minutes ago. It is a Howe Truss pedestrian bridge, a replica of an earlier bridge from 1931, destroyed by flooding and an ice jam in the winter of 2007-2008. Said bridge is, admittedly, quite contemporary, but it is of wood construction, and wonderfully well constructed, to boot (and comes with a dedication plaque :) ).

 

cf52f7b1-7e02-4dd1-87a6-593c87807c91.jpg

 

Given my predilection for all things historical, I felt it my duty to at least spawn this proposal.

 

Acknowledging that wooden bridges, though now primarily erected to accommodate only human traffic, continue to be built, I would not wish to limit said proposed category with regard to vintage, nor to style, nor to proposed use, in an effort to simplify requirements. It is proposed that all bridge styles of all vintages be acceptable, the single proviso that their supporting structure be wooden.

 

Moreover, though I feel they may be scarce as hen's teeth, I would LOVE to see a myriad of European wooden bridges...

 

... ... ... ...

 

... After several moments of further consideration I have decided that both the proposal and the header should instead become Historical Wooden Bridges. That best befits my initial intention, that of recognizing wooden bridges of vintage, bridges which allowed the opening and settlement of new lands, bridges which created shorter travel routes, bridges which enabled more economical trade routes, bridges which brought communities together and bridges which brought friends, families and loved ones closer.

 

It was, after all, primarily bridges and trestles built of wood which accomplished all these objectives in the new world and, to a much lesser extent, in the old world.

 

Hence, age restrictions must be instituted. And now it's your turn. In what range do you feel these restrictions should fall? Something like 50 or 80 years? Longer? I gratefully await your input.

 

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment

Tell me about those bridges, there Goldenwattle.

Thanks for posting these!!!

 

What do you know about them? They are all obviously "old", as in vintage.

What I propose re submissions is that Waymarkers be able to document the stories and the histories of the bridges they encounter.

That would be a requirement for acceptance.

Should you be able to provide some good documentation, stories, histories on the bridges you've shown us, they would all be quite acceptable.

 

REMNANTS:

Even remnants of HISTORIC wooden bridges, since destroyed or fallen down, would be acceptable, should photos of sufficient WOODEN remnants be provided.

After all, it's really the crossing of the particular obstacle by a technological or engineering means (of course employing WOOD to do the job) that is really the point here. The bridge is simply the remaining visible remnant of the means by which the crossing was accomplished, often, in the case of standing bridges, exhibiting the design and engineering prowess of the engineer..

 

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, elyob said:

I'm glad to read trestles and remnants might be included.  Concerning the date range you seek, the category would not accept bridges younger than ?? years, correct?

 

Thanks for responding, Dave.

Date range? Still unsure. You must have read my last post the instant it was posted.

Yes, trestles and remnants WOULD be included.

BTW - Either I'm up too late or you're up too early. :)

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, elyob said:

If we have to provide documentation, stories and histories; is an age restriction necessary?  The history will speak for itself.

 

Yes, I guess the stories would be the documentation necessary, thereby obviating the necessity of a then unnecessary variable.

GOOD point!!! Thanks

 

Age, though, might be a sticking point with some, though not with me, given the historical importance of a bridge. Hmmmm! Still another good point!

How is it that you re able to make two good points in just one sentence?!?!?!

Keith

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, fi67 said:

Here in Switzerland Old means Covered.

 

I have seen other wooden bridges on old pictures from around 1900, but I do not think that any of them still exist.

 

And what would be wrong with covered, given that it had a good story to tell of its history and its ability to aid the Suisse in getting from here to there, or transporting goods from here to there, or even eliminating hours from a trip from here to there?

AND - remember that neither of us know ALL the history of our respective lands. A smattering of those bridges could still be there. In Sierre I remember seeing what I "remember" as a date of 1510 on the header over the entrance to a wooden barn. My memory may be not quite up to snuff, but that date I seem to remember quite well, because of its inherent absurdity, in relation to my personal history.

Thanks for responding, fi guy, Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, fi67 said:

Here in Switzerland Old means Covered.

 

I have seen other wooden bridges on old pictures from around 1900, but I do not think that any of them still exist.

 

If the replacement bridge was built beside the historic bridge, remnants of the historic bridge might still exist.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ScroogieII said:

Tell me about those bridges, there Goldenwattle.

This is information on the last three photographs. The bottom one, and the one two photographs above that are the same rail bridge, completed in 1902. The car/buggy/horse bridge photograph in-between was built in 1866, but a year or two ago was demolished. I remember as a child travelling over the old road bridge and even in the dark knowing where we were, because of the up-down, rocky-rock of the car going over it. It was almost a km long, built on a flood plain, that can be deadly, and in the past wiped out a town in 1852 with about 80-100 deaths. The town of Gundagai was moved to the hills beside the flood plain.

Bridges:

https://www.visitgundagai.com.au/discovergundagai/gundagai-historic-bridges#:~:text=It formed part of the,a risk to public safety.

 

Flood:

https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/gundagai-flood-1852#:~:text=In the middle of the,standing when the water receded.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, elyob said:

 

If the replacement bridge was built beside the historic bridge, remnants of the historic bridge might still exist.

 

True! But actually beside the point, as well as the bridge. ;)

Just occurred to me that you might be referring to my bridge. In this case it wasn't, thence they don't.

 

But, back to your earlier point - "is an age restriction necessary?" I would have to say no, for the simple reason you presented:

"The history will speak for itself."

Upon presenting this proposal I hadn't yet given it the thought that you were able to conjure within minutes. Want to be an officer, should it come to fruition?

Thanks again - Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I remember as a child travelling over the old road bridge

 

Given the state of those bridges you are certainly "giving away" your age, aren't you?  'S OK, I may well be older than you.

In any event, should this proposal gestate into a category you have a couple of winners there, no worrys!

Thanks!!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ScroogieII said:

And what would be wrong with covered....

 

Because they would be redundant with the "Covered Bridges" category? I have two bridges in that category and both are wooden:

 

https://Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm16B86 and https://Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm10KPV

 

That leads to my questions: Would wooden bridges be accepted if they have already been accepted in "Covered Bridges"?

 

And: You said "have a supporting structure constituted primarily, or almost completely, of wood". When does "primarily" start/end? :lostsignal: The first of my 2 WMs might have concrete(?) bridge piers covered with wooden boards and the rest is all made of wood. Would that be enough for "primarily made of wood"?

 

And the second of my waymarks has a roof of roof tiles and a concrete basement on either sides, but apart from that from the "historical" viewpoint: This bridge was made in 1976 (so, only 46 years old), but is based on a 400 year old bridge in Germany. So, historically interesting or not?

Link to comment

This category idea gives me the opportunity to spam with a few comments that I usually get:

 

Nay, redundant because you can post it in other categories!!! There must be a sign next to it!!! How can you tell that it's old!!! Bad idea!!! It will be a mess!!! The officers will have to do  a gigantic amount of work to check these bridges!!! I don't like it!!! 

 

Now that's off my mind, you can disregard the sentences with the exclamation marks and proceed with this very worthy category idea :)

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Becktracker said:

Nay, redundant because you can post it in other categories!!! There must be a sign next to it!!! How can you tell that it's old!!! Bad idea!!! It will be a mess!!! The officers will have to do  a gigantic amount of work to check these bridges!!! I don't like it!!! 

 

 

Thanks for pointing out these objections.  

I will only add, if this historic bridges category proceeds, keep in mind there are 100s of categories that also can be proposed as new "Historic" categories.

Including most bridge categories, businesses and shops, some structure categories, then there are categories such as Cemeteries, Fountains, Aqueducts, Windmills, Piers and Marinas, and too many to list.

 

Link to comment

Also, most of these "Historic" brides, (depending on the requirements) can most likely be posted in one of these categories;

Historical Marker Categories (64 categories)
Australian Historical Markers 
Belgium Monument Registers
Canada (6 Categories)
Deutsche Denkmallisten - German Monument Registers 
Histoires de France (French historical markers)
Norway Historical Sites
Portuguese Historical Markers
Rijksmonumenten - Dutch National Monuments
U.S. States A to I (15 Categories)
U.S. States K to M (11 Categories)
U.S. States N to P (12 Categories)
U.S. States R to W (12 Categories)
UK Historical Markers 
 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, elyob said:

 

If the replacement bridge was built beside the historic bridge, remnants of the historic bridge might still exist.

It is a small country with a high population density. But, in fact 60% of the area are uninhabitable and not cultivable. So the area outside of the rocks and the ice has more than double the population density you see on the fact sheets. Just building a new bridge next to the old one would mean a change of the road layout and thus additional land resources. Such an idea would be an uphill battle with little chances to succeed.

 

10 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

 

And what would be wrong with covered, given that it had a good story to tell of its history and its ability to aid the Suisse in getting from here to there, or transporting goods from here to there, or even eliminating hours from a trip from here to there?

AND - remember that neither of us know ALL the history of our respective lands. A smattering of those bridges could still be there. In Sierre I remember seeing what I "remember" as a date of 1510 on the header over the entrance to a wooden barn. My memory may be not quite up to snuff, but that date I seem to remember quite well, because of its inherent absurdity, in relation to my personal history.

Thanks for responding, fi guy, Keith

 

There is nothing wrong with covered. Au contraire, they are great. It just does not feel right to have a new category that is already completely covered (pun intended) by an older existing one. I am just giving my input from a local perspective and hope there will be more of these to create a global picture. In my neck of the woods the idea would need some serious tweaking, but if this is not the case in the majority of the areas where waymarkers exist, then it's fine.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
8 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

 

Because they would be redundant with the "Covered Bridges" category? I have two bridges in that category and both are wooden:

 

https://Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm16B86 and https://Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm10KPV

 

That leads to my questions: Would wooden bridges be accepted if they have already been accepted in "Covered Bridges"?

 

And: You said "have a supporting structure constituted primarily, or almost completely, of wood". When does "primarily" start/end? :lostsignal: The first of my 2 WMs might have concrete(?) bridge piers covered with wooden boards and the rest is all made of wood. Would that be enough for "primarily made of wood"?

 

And the second of my waymarks has a roof of roof tiles and a concrete basement on either sides, but apart from that from the "historical" viewpoint: This bridge was made in 1976 (so, only 46 years old), but is based on a 400 year old bridge in Germany. So, historically interesting or not?

 

By including "almost completely" of wood I'm acknowledging that there will be many metal, as in iron or steel, fasteners, but no, or very little, actual supporting members that are NOT wood.

By supporting members I refer to beams, girders, truss structures, decks and the like but NOT pilings, piers and/or abutments. These (pilings, piers and/or abutments) can be of any material, as they are normally built of rock, concrete, steel and similar.

A roof is not supporting, hence it could be of a different material, which is often the case.

 

"Because they would be redundant with the "Covered Bridges" category?"

Yes they would, and they would be redundant with several other bridge categories, as well.

 

The point is that there exist many old wooden bridges of historic value which as yet have no Waymarking home, primarily trestle bridges.

A Historical Wooden Trestle Bridges category would likely be a bit too limiting, as would allowing only bridges NOT already categorized.

 

The governing concept I envision is that acceptable bridges be accompanied by their history, informing the reader of their value to humanity. Necessary information would include their date of construction, date of decommissioning, who or what built it, its initial purpose, its present purpose and finally, why it was built where it was, IE why it was needed and whether it actually served its purpose. Look at the bridges posted to other, here redundant, categories and you'll find that the majority have been submitted lacking historical information.

This would not be the case here, as it is the history of the bridge and the story of the crossing which is of primary interest.

 

Why WOODEN bridges, you ask?

Because, as humans advanced technologically from simply tossing a log across a stream to actually constructing a lasting structure, the first material used was almost always wood.

Why wooden BRIDGES, you ask?

Because it was, in a great many cases, bridges which allowed mankind to expand his horizons. As I stated earlier, it was bridges which allowed the opening and settlement of new lands, bridges which created shorter travel routes, bridges which enabled more economical trade routes, bridges which brought communities together and bridges which brought friends, families and loved ones closer.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I would not restrict age. A wooden bridge is a wooden bridge, in the same way that a "roman catholic" church is the same built in 2013, an "old church" or a "medieval church" from the 12th century
It would admit wooden bridges even if there was a "covered bridge" or "plank road", in the same way that a "stone bridge" can be an "arch bridge"

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 10/31/2022 at 7:15 AM, Becktracker said:

This category idea gives me the opportunity to spam with a few comments that I usually get:

 

Nay, redundant because you can post it in other categories!!! There must be a sign next to it!!! How can you tell that it's old!!! Bad idea!!! It will be a mess!!! The officers will have to do  a gigantic amount of work to check these bridges!!! I don't like it!!! 

 

Now that's off my mind, you can disregard the sentences with the exclamation marks and proceed with this very worthy category idea :)

 

NEVER lose your sense of humour, there Ivo.

It's what keeps us sane... ... Or relatively so!

Keith

Link to comment
On 11/1/2022 at 8:51 AM, Ariberna said:

I would not restrict age. A wooden bridge is a wooden bridge, in the same way that a "roman catholic" church is the same built in 2013, an "old church" or a "medieval church" from the 12th century
It would admit wooden bridges even if there was a "covered bridge" or "plank road", in the same way that a "stone bridge" can be an "arch bridge"

 

Thanks for the support, Ariberna, but, in retrospect, methinks this was a non-starter from the git-go.

Really, I can't imagine what would have prompted me to make the proposal. Mebbe I'm beginning to lose touch with reality. What year is this? Is it winter yet? Don't see any snow.  Is it spring yet? Don't see any robins out my window, so mebbe not.

Now I don't know where we are. Is this still the third planet from the sun?

Is that the sun, or the moon? What is a moon? Is that important? Is being important even important?

My TV is showing me Australians throwing curling rocks. Something's wrong here. What year is this & what planet is this?

OR - mebbe that's an Australian's TV. BUT WHY am I watching an Australian's TV? Am I there? Why does "there" look just like "here"?

Soooo many things to research, and sooo little time.

... ...

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
On 10/31/2022 at 2:59 AM, ScroogieII said:

Yes, I know, there are several categories into which many, possibly the majority, of wooden bridges may be accepted.

That's not really the point, which is that a great many historic bridges in my corner of the world, and hopefully yours, have a supporting structure constituted primarily, or almost completely, of wood. Many old and historical wooden truss, girder and trestle road and railroad bridges still exist in North America and other lands, some of which may not exist decades from now. Waymarks of these symbols of our heritage may ultimately be the last surviving memorials to these iconic structures.

 

I have, off and on, given consideration to this potential category for several years. What prompted my raising the issue at this time was the posting of a wooden truss bridge several minutes ago. It is a Howe Truss pedestrian bridge, a replica of an earlier bridge from 1931, destroyed by flooding and an ice jam in the winter of 2007-2008. Said bridge is, admittedly, quite contemporary, but it is of wood construction, and wonderfully well constructed, to boot (and comes with a dedication plaque :) ).

 

cf52f7b1-7e02-4dd1-87a6-593c87807c91.jpg

 

Given my predilection for all things historical, I felt it my duty to at least spawn this proposal.

 

Acknowledging that wooden bridges, though now primarily erected to accommodate only human traffic, continue to be built, I would not wish to limit said proposed category with regard to vintage, nor to style, nor to proposed use, in an effort to simplify requirements. It is proposed that all bridge styles of all vintages be acceptable, the single proviso that their supporting structure be wooden.

 

Moreover, though I feel they may be scarce as hen's teeth, I would LOVE to see a myriad of European wooden bridges...

 

... ... ... ...

 

... After several moments of further consideration I have decided that both the proposal and the header should instead become Historical Wooden Bridges. That best befits my initial intention, that of recognizing wooden bridges of vintage, bridges which allowed the opening and settlement of new lands, bridges which created shorter travel routes, bridges which enabled more economical trade routes, bridges which brought communities together and bridges which brought friends, families and loved ones closer.

 

It was, after all, primarily bridges and trestles built of wood which accomplished all these objectives in the new world and, to a much lesser extent, in the old world.

 

Hence, age restrictions must be instituted. And now it's your turn. In what range do you feel these restrictions should fall? Something like 50 or 80 years? Longer? I gratefully await your input.

 

Keith

 

With the right write-up, that would be accepted in Exact Replicas https://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=f59a7a20-2c6d-4b2b-8144-55c380702733&gid=6

Link to comment
On 11/2/2022 at 6:17 PM, elyob said:

Silly me, I was already making trip plans to photograph railroad bridge remnants.  Thanks for nothing.

 

Yes, indeed, Silly You! How could you possibly believe that a category proposal with even a scintilla of potential "overlapedness" (overlapeddness?) could succeed in this day and age?!?!?!

How could I?!?!??! 

How could we?!?!?!

How could anyone else?!?!?!

I tell ya, It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World - In spite of the fact that this is no longer 1963. ... ... I think ... ... er - I believe ... ... What time is it... ...?

 

And "for nothing", in return you get "Je t'en prie, et pas de quoi".

Thanks for playing, though,:D

Keith

Link to comment
On 11/3/2022 at 3:13 PM, Ariberna said:

Scroogiell are you Offelia from Hamlet?

Is there any sanity in madness?

 

And now, on to the more serious stuff...

OK, first, though I'm vaguely familiar with Shakespeare and his missives, from high school English classes, I remember essentially nothing of his characters, so a Google (actually, in my case, a Duck Duck Go) trip immediately became necessary. The first hit returned this:

"Ophelia’s role in the play revolves around her relationships with three men."

Two or five things there immediately eliminate any slight possibility of my being "Offelia":

1 - I'm reasonably certain that I'm a male. (I can look down and check, should that become necessary.)

2 - I'm even MORE certain that I've not had "relationships" with three men. Not one at a time, not with two nor three, not even in groups of a dozen or more. (Now I'm sounding like I "doth protest too much", so I'll move on.)

3 - I've DEFINITELY never had an affair with Hamlet.

4 - I certainly do not remember all the murder and cruelty that surrounded this "Offelia" lady. My upbringing on a farm in a small rural prairie community was nothing whatever like Offelia's. All green, serene and pastoral with fluffy clouds in the sky floating gently past. - - - Or was that the movie I watched last night?!?

5 - Not sure whether it counts one way or the other, but I did once Waymark an "Olivia Crescent" as part of a William Shakespeare Waymark.

 

Nope! Can't think of a single connection between myself and her. I vaguely recall that she was Danish. Though I've encountered a great many nationalities populating my family tree, offhand I recall no Danes.

Mebbe, instead, there are a plethora of Spaniards  in the upper branches of my tree, and you could be a descendant of one of them!!!

Does that scare you?!?!?!

It SHOULD!!!

There is quite a bit of insanity, both inherited and self-induced, in my lineage. I have cousins, even a sister, who believed in unseen, unknown deities. Many of them even worshiped their deities. Others in my family were pagans.

So, BEWARE, Ariberna!

Keep Your Distance!!

I, like my kin and sibling, am MAD AS A HATTER!!!

(Evil, Witch like Warlock like cackle here, volume >90db)

 

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...