No such thing as a dead horse when it comes to discussions of how to do stuff better.
The boat is the frame of reference in the video, in the case of the bridge approach, it might have been better to take a shot every second and splice that such that each shot is displayed for .15 seconds or so. The net effect would be that there are enough "filler" shots to remove the jumpy look this video has. Spacing them too far apart was what I was referring to originally, not only are all three planes moving, but the shots are so far apart that the frame of reference (the boat) is jumping around in all three planes against the horizon at the same time, and that makes it hard to watch. There needs to be enough filler to smooth it out because you cannot control the three axis movement, but you can "pin it" to a frame of reference, and make it work to your advantage. Hence the two ways to get the product, pin the boat as the frame of reference by attaching the camera fixed to the boat, or pin the camera to the horizon with a gimbal. As long as x, y OR z is relatively stable, it'll be easy to watch.
Here's a sample of what I mean; there's enough shots that the clouds moving across the scene are casting a shadow that moves in a nice linear fashion - it has a video look to it, and it's not hard to look at. If there had been say, 1/2 as many shots, the shadow would look jumpy and would take your eye away from the scene. The text says the crossing takes about 10 minutes, so there's probably something in the 600-1000 range for individual shots in each crossing.
There's no right or wrong way to do it, and nobody's going to rain on anybody for sharing their trip
Memory cards are cheap. I've never heard anybody say they took too many pictures and you never know when that one really cool shot will happen, and if you don't push the limits you'll never know!