[Tagging] Interpreting "One feature, one OSM-object"

[John Smith]

On 22 September 2010 21:19, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> wrote:
> My interpretation of the "One feature, one OSM-object" suggestion

I can only assume that was referring to physical objects, rather than
meta information.

Boundaries aren't a physical object, and they're not properly dealt
with most of the time in any case.

Waterways is one of the few things, especially where no hi-res imagery
is available, I actually think they can be shared. Take for example
the Murray RIver, the south bank is the border, it's also the south
bank of the river, is there really much more in splitting them since
when one moves they both do.

I very very strongly disagree that a bot should be used to split this
information, too many boundary relations already get broken by people,
I shudder to imagine how badly a bot could really screw things up.