<html><head></head><body><div id="fenix-user-content">
<p style=" margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px;"><span style=" font-family:'NokiaPureTextLight';">Whilst I think this is a very bad idea for the same reasons as already given by Martin and Janko.</span></p>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; font-family:'NokiaPureTextLight';"><br></p>
<p style=" margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px;"><span style=" font-family:'NokiaPureTextLight';">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?</span></p>
<p style="-qt-paragraph-type:empty; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px; font-family:'NokiaPureTextLight';"><br></p>
<p style=" margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px;"><span style=" font-family:'NokiaPureTextLight';">Phil (trigpoint)</span></p>
<p style=" margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px;"><span style=" font-family:'NokiaPureTextLight';">--</span></p>
<p style=" margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px;"><span style=" font-family:'NokiaPureTextLight';"> </span></p>
<p style=" margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px;"><span style=" font-family:'NokiaPureTextLight';">Sent from my Nokia N9</span></p>
<p style=" margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; margin-left:0px; margin-right:0px; -qt-block-indent:0; text-indent:0px;"><span style=" font-family:'NokiaPureTextLight';"> </span></p></div><br><div id="fenix-reply-header"><p>On 03/04/2014 10:12 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br></p></div><div id="fenix-quoted-body"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-04-03 1:53 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:janjko@gmail.com" target="_blank">janjko@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>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.<br>
<br></div><div>All of these are valid points, </div></blockquote><div><br><br><br></div><div>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.<br>
<br></div><div>cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div></div></div>
</div><br></body></html>