Kartografer wrote:I support simply leaving unjunctioined railroads at ground with elevation conflicts. Gaps look weird or will give warnings in regression checker and Magic. Lowering isn't a problem now but will also look weird once the app shows elevation.

Agreed completely.

I think the "offending" sentence is poorly worded, but indicates a sometimes-appropriate reason for making sure tracks (or at least a data gathering node accompanying them: see below) are mapped. I don't think the first mention needs to be as fully fleshed as option B, but something like "Under certain circumstances, mapping Railroads can be beneficial to data gathering (see below)". Or something along those lines. The meat of the conversation can appear in the appropriate bullet and accompanying footnote, the latter of which I think I'd rather see integrated more fully in to the text, somehow. As a footnote, it seems like it lessens the importance of examining fully before junctioning, almost an afterthought.

This may be heretical, but I'd even go so far as to wonder if the junction node should just be added to the driveable road AT the RR, without actually going though all the histrionics involved with actually junctioning the RR segment.