Hi, On May 10 17:00, Stefan Keller wrote: > > handled responsible in regard to the user base. I believe osm already > > reached that point :) > I'm sorry to state with emphasis, that the OSM concept and format did *not* > reach stability yet: > It's simply lacking one of three basic geometry types, namely 'area' (or > polygon or how you name it)!
Ok. I know that the OSM concept is far away from beeing complete but it's already in a very usuable state. > On the other hand I agree with you that changing concepts and APIs should > follow a more stable change process as we have discussed it in the initial > thread about 0.6 API. Sorry for resurrecting this thread but i only noticed it yesterday. Following a more stable change process would indeed be great. It's not only about users but also about developers who wants to write applications that somehow use osm data. As i said, the project is already in a state where it is widely known and the data is used/modified by many users and developers on a regular base. That's why i think that the time has come to handle changes more carefully when possible. It was not my intention to blame people for yet again breaking the api, in case somebody read it that way. Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
