On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Andy Allan <[email protected]> wrote: > Talking of which, I think it would be great at some point to resolve > the "recognising existing data" from "suggesting to add the feature" > dual roles of map_features. For example, I see nothing inherently > wrong with recognising capital cities when you click on one - but I > don't want them on the dnd panel since the need for adding more is > vanishingly uncommon.
Agreed. Another common use case will be recognising deprecated/deficient/alternative tagging schemes. Oh, and while we're brainstorming about upcoming map_features problems, anyone got a solution for highway=proposed, proposed=trunk? >From a usability perspective, it would be nice for that state to be a drop down on a tab, even though it totally changes the basic tag. And in a similar vein, it would be nice to collapse the various types of rail (spur, siding...) into properties of a rail line, rather than top-level distinctions. But then, we need to decide how transparent the editing should be: do we educate the user about the esoteric intricacies of OSM tagging, or try and hide some of the ugliness? Steve _______________________________________________ Potlatch-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
