Hi, On 11/17/18 19:36, Kevin Kenny wrote: > You're welcome to this particular opinion in your personal capacity and > are free to argue the point as passionately as you care to.
Why, thank you ;) > When you have your DWG hat on I don't, and never had in this whole discussion. > A minority of > users (including myself), whose number appears to be growing, find that > sharing boundary ways among multipolygons creates a structure that > actually is easier to enter, edit and maintain than the one that appears > from multiple retraced ways over the same nodes, or worse, independently > traced ways that are approximating the same boundary in the field. Oh yes, certainly. Of course, in the concrete example at hand, re-tracing the whole boundary of the Gulf of Bothnia as a new way would have been worse (and impossible due to the 2000 node limit), and not even re-using the nodes would have been unspeakably worse. My argument was that if you can get away with using a single node for labelling, then you don't have to burden all those 1,400 coastline ways with one (or two or three) extra relation memberships and that would be preferable. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
