Pawel, i do not understand how the New History Tab will scale and how it will be fast. Right now it's slow.
The old owl fell over b/c of scale problems and my understanding is that the underlying technical challenge of how to make massive changesets browsable in rev chronological order on a map is unsolved. I must be missing something, I don't think you have explained this anywhere. I'd realy like to understand, where can I read up? On Friday, May 3, 2013, Paweł Paprota wrote: > IMHO people really should put their minds to fixing *the* problem of > "Querying all changesets that actually modified data in an arbitrary > bounding box of the world and displaying them in reverse chronological > order is computationally expensive" instead of coming up with yet another > half way solution. > > It looks nice as such tools often do but does not solve the problem > properly - why not use the time to help out with OWL / New History Tab > instead of starting another project from scratch? > > Anyway, let me use this opportunity to give people a quick update about > OWL and the History Tab Beta. > > As is painfully obvious from my "Contributions" graphic on Github[1], I've > not been active at all in OSM since late February. Coincidentally, I > started at my new job at that time... > > Currently I am on a two-month work trip in Germany with not much free time > but I really miss OSM and OWL development so I plan to get back to it some > time in June when I'm back at home. > > When you look at it, there is really not a lot of stuff to be done before > OWL and New History Tab can be rolled out to production. Mainly there are > UI tweaks to be done so it looks nicer - that's why I'm a bit sad that no > one volunteered to help out with JS/CSS - it's the easy part of the > project... > > On the backend side (OWL), there is support for relation to be added which > is a gigantic challenge but I think this could be scheduled for 2.0... > > In any case, please consider helping out with the project, especially the > frontend side, as it is not that far from being in > potentially-mergable-state. > > [1] https://github.com/ppawel > > Paweł > > On 05/02/2013 05:18 PM, Alex Barth wrote: > >> At this weekend's Chicago hack weekend Tom and I worked on a prototype >> that could be a viable solution for our currently broken history tab. It >> is taking a very different approach in comparison to Pawel's history tab >> [1] by not showing the entire history up front, but only latest changes >> to visible elements. I wrote up the details in a diary entry, would love >> to hear peoples thoughts on this. I think from a user story perspective >> this would work and it would be much cheaper to implement than a fast >> historic changeset browser. >> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/**user/lxbarth/diary/19185<http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/19185> >> >> Alex >> >> [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/pipermail/talk/2013-** >> January/065556.html<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2013-January/065556.html> >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/dev<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev> >> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/dev<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev> >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
