Yes, one reason to reject this is that it involves a neologism, coined by the proposal author, that few people will recognize and use.
On April 3, 2014 4:53:44 AM CDT, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote: > 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 -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
