Pawel Baran

Sounds good to me, as long as we do not leave both items living separate lives in long term 👍

I strongly agree with @rolyhudson - I would mention one more reason for implementing discipline-specific MEP nodes instead of geometrical primitives: besides handling of topological relationships mentioned above, there is...

One more item to be considered while resolving this: as pointed by @AndreBalasian, the dimension used in MEP calcs is the nominal dimension, which is usually different from the physical...

It makes sense to me to have all representations as `IFragments`. Not sure however, whether a `RenderPoint` can exist as an independent representation, or is it always contained within a...

I like the concept in general (I co-authored it in the end 😃), one question that I have in mind now is whether it would be OK to use `IReinforcementFragments`...

Yeah we had a discussion about that a few times already (I bet you can find some existing issues), each time the idea has been dropped due to lack of...

Makes much sense to me in general, not sure however how much of refactoring (or even breaking changes) would that introduce. So happy for the change, as long as it...

Thanks for the clear explanation @JosefTaylor - could you please update the title though? BTW, I've raised https://github.com/BHoM/Revit_Toolkit/issues/771, would be good to coordinate the two. May be interesting for @rwemay...

In the discussions with @IsakNaslundBh a long time ago, we came to a statement that we do not want to put any abstract information about the location of `Physical` elements....

Thanks @JosefTaylor for picking this up. I would let the others judge your suggested solution (@IsakNaslundBh, @rwemay, @peterjamesnugent?), but what I can comment on is that it could make sense...