<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-05-31 15:03 GMT+02:00 Richard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ricoz.osm@gmail.com" target="_blank">ricoz.osm@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":2h6" class="a3s aXjCH m15506ea5294d263a">often enough I get messages from people saying that drawing a bridge<br>
or culvert for every minor highway/waterway crossing causes more<br>
trouble than use and I tend to agree.</div></blockquote></div><br><br>I disagree. Either there is a bridge / culvert in reality, and in this case why wouldn't we want it in OSM, or there isn't and then it is a simple error waiting to be corrected.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Which trouble do these elements cause? I realize they make it harder to apply modifications to long (i.e. probably more pieces) ways, but on the other hand, casual mistakes also don't extend very far.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Think how much work it is to construct a culvert or a bridge, those will last typically for a long time (also because they are there for a reason), and compare to how much work it is to put them into OSM (2 nodes, split, add one tag). Is this still a real problem?<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">If you are not interested in mapping them, don't do it, but please do not invent a tag that encourages not to map them.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Cheers,<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Martin<br></div></div>