Don't know where to put this really .. Just looked at an 1845 map of the area I was raised in and compared it to Google maps. There has been a tremendous amount of change, with industrial works, schools, roads - castles even -disappearing from the landscape and new roads and buildings appearing in places where once only the wildlife held sway. Even the 1907 map was less built-up (although the remains of that castle seem to have been buried under a race track) and the place where I lived from 5 to 12 was just fields. Much change has happened since I was a boy - the road where one set of grandparents lived is no longer there (mind you, the road wasn't there in 1892 but was in 1908 - looks like the result of building as many houses as practical in a remaining area occupied by few properties), one of the fields I walked is now home to a motorway (I think that's called a "freeway" in the colonies) and the little brook I used to dam is no more ... buried under the same 'civilizing' (ie, flattening of the area to build new houses) that took the little gullies I jumped my bike over. Even while I was a boy, my favourite pond (well, more of mini lake and marsh) was concreted over, leaving me mourning my "friends" the frogs, newts, fish, snails and reeds. On the other hand, it was nice to see that a particularly large oak I used to climb is still there as well as the 'new' parade of shops where I climbed along the outside of the 2nd floor walkway railings. However, it does leave me wondering how far the average urban or suburban child has to travel before they can encounter a bit of nature they can explore and play in and how that distance changes over time ... of course, I'd have kittens if I saw any of my children doing half of the things I used to do.