2011/3/25 Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> > David Paleino wrote: > > No, it's up to YOU, as a developer, to support basic OSM things. > > "Relations" are an OSM primitive, and to be considered the official > > editor, since you're being hosted on osm.org, you MUST implement them. > > That's IMHO, obviously. > > It's IYHO but your O would be better if it were qualified by some facts. :) > > Let me repeat as you appear unwilling either to actually read my previous > posting or to click 'Edit' and spend ten seconds finding out for yourself: > > Potlatch 2 _already_ has excellent relation support. > > However: > > > My proposal doesn't use anything special to be implemented in editors. > > That's not the point. > > Anyone can map anything in Potlatch, or JOSM, or Merkaartor, or their own > favourite editor, by creating the primitives manually, and adding tags, > using the standard UI. Of course they can. > > Yet this isn't always a sufficiently user-friendly way of creating them. > Sometimes, a special-purpose editor can make it more understandable for > newcomers, and quicker for experienced users. For example, both JOSM and > Potlatch have dedicated turn-restriction editors, which are much more > user-friendly than manually creating the relations and entering the members > in the appropriate roles. > > _That_ is the challenge. If we want people to map pavements (or sidewalks > as > those crazy Yanks call them ;) ) then it isn't good enough just to say > "hey, > do it all manually". We have to think about an inviting UI for it. We want > the newcomers to be involved - not to make OSM into more and more of a > ghetto for people with l337 Linux or GIS sk1llz. > > If you've thought about it, that's great. If you have suggestions for how > it > might be implemented, that's great. But saying "I don't use Potlatch, so I > can't tell how advanced his support for relations is" reads, to me, as > "screw you, Potlatch guys, I expect you to do all the hard work in making > it > easy for users". We simply don't have infinite resources to do this with > every single suggestion. Making OSM easy to edit is not the sole > responsibility of three people on the potlatch-dev mailing list, it's > _everyone_'s responsibility. >
Isn't this, like, the strongest argument in favour of dropping the current "one thousand tools" scheme and just go ahead and make an "official" OSM editor? One that a newcomer can refer to, so that he doesn't have to know what he's going to use it for to pick the right one. But to do this we need to take a more mature approach and finally enforce certain requirements. For example, if we decide that this reference editor is Potlatch, then Potlatch MUST support new features, possibly with a user-friendly UI. It's not the mappers or the taggers who should suggest UI design. This is the editor developers' problem. But we must stop having three separate groups: the mappers who map what they want, the taggers who describe the unattainably perfect way to map (and to "non-attain" this they end up winding in endless discussions), and the developers who support what they want. Regards. Simone > Richard > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Feature-Proposal-RFC-Sidewalks-as-separate-ways-tp6205524p6207532.html > Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
