One of the challenges the amateur historian faces is that oral history is just that; oral. It consists of many threads, many truths and a huge amount of speculation, tempered by half-memory and rumour. Anecdote is neither fact, not proof, and without names, written histories or external corroboration, it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to discern the actuality.
Maps are not infallible, but can be a good indicator to changing history. I include some here for perusal of readers who’re interested in the speculation myself and reader [Howmuch?] have been engaged in over what caused the scar in Jockey Meadows.
We don’t know, we have no idea. It’s interesting, like a discussion in a pub. This is not an adversarial process, but a continuing, delicious engagement with landscape history. We don’t pretend to know the truth. but the black art of attempting to find it is worth the experience alone.