Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already given by Martin and Janko.
What on earth is a Brunnel? I don't know and neither does google. I have an idea from reading the thread but I wonder how many have ignored the thread through the choice of words in the title? Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Nokia N9 On 03/04/2014 10:12 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-04-03 1:53 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić <jan...@gmail.com>: Rationale in the Wiki says this would save us database space, we would have 2 ways and 1 node less per bridge. Also, that maintaining one node is easier than maintaining 3 ways. Lastly, problem of pretending you have drawn a little bridge precise, when you didn't. All of these are valid points, FWIW, it is not true, we would "save" 1 way or 2, but the amount of nodes would remain the same, because with the new proposal the waterway would get an extra node which it hasn't otherwise. The 1 way saved is on the other hand loss of information as pointed out before. cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
