On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:53:15AM +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: > Also -1 for the proposal. > > 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, but I think they don't overweight the > problems this would give us. We would break one of the most basic rules we > have, and we don't have much rules.
this basic rule seems to spook around here and I think we should look at it. So what is it? > We don't know what that could hurt. we have an idea. There are some 10,000 single node bridges in OSM data already. Some share of those does also share a node with the waterway bellow and not all of them are in exotic locations where nobody would ever notice. > Second are mappers who like clear rules. And if we don't have those > core rules, future may bring us problems. are the rules for the proposal unclear? Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
