Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for lifecycle tag - comments?
Steve Bennett-3 wrote: Anyway think the element names could be refined slightly. Are there any other tags that work this way, apart from the lifecycle ones? Do different tags have different lifecycles (I seem to recall that railways have more states). Should I just hard-code it all? I like the basic mechanism, supports the current handling of construction nicely. I believe a tagging scheme like this was discussed for the very unspecific historic=ruins, but I dont't think there was anything definite. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-dev-Suggestion-for-lifecycle-tag-comments-tp6029585p6030992.html Sent from the Potlatch mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for lifecycle tag - comments?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: My first thought is to just have another couple of highway types ( a proposed highway and a highway under construction ) with a list of classifications in a choice input, and maybe some date inputs for when they are opening and so on. My feeling is that proposed is really not a type of highway, and that eventually this tagging scheme will be replaced by something a little less idiosyncratic: highway=tertiary lifecycle=proposed No, it won't, for reasons already explained by Nop. Moreover the current system has the distinct advantage that it can be used to describe what's on the ground - a stroke of a pen on a planner's chart isn't a slight variant of a secondary road, it's something else entirely ( a proposal ) and hence is a separate high-level concept. Similarly, if you stumble across a strip of gravel surrounded by men with shovels you can be pretty sure it's a road under construction, but you would need further investigation to tell what kind of road it might at some point become in the future. I think the tagging scheme isn't idiosyncratic but is actually well thought through, but even without giving a fig about tagging I don't want to see proposed/construction/actually-exists as a property on all the roads within p2. Ok, first, I don't think the UI would be different either way. All the code would be happening behind the scenes, to make a simple UI: simply an extra dropdown on a misc tab or something. Which is actually a different thing. What I'm suggesting is that proposed and construction would be two more icons on the grid of road types, whereas you are suggesting the lifecycle should be a dropdown on every single one of the hundreds of thousands of normal roads. Not to mention you'd need to duplicate all the road types for every life cycle stage. You'd also need to add proposed railway, proposed cycleway, proposed foothpath, proposed track, proposed bridleway, proposed building, etc etc (and repeat for construction etc). Pretty messy, no? Pretty unnecessary, imo. I think you're misunderstanding the current purpose of the simple tab - providing a simple UI for the majority of the mapping. Proposed buildings is pretty niche, and should be incorporated in a way becoming of its niche-ness. Adding dropdowns over every object for such a rare occurrence is the messy way. Cheers, Andy ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for lifecycle tag - comments?
Andy Allan wrote: Pretty unnecessary, imo. I think you're misunderstanding the current purpose of the simple tab - providing a simple UI for the majority of the mapping. Proposed buildings is pretty niche, and should be incorporated in a way becoming of its niche-ness. +1. (Are we allowed to say aolme too/aol these days in view of our generous sponsors...?) Potlatch, 1 or 2, has always been a 90-10 editor. Make the 90% of mapping easy, and the 10% possible. And of course the 'advanced' view makes anything possible. We have the luxury that JOSM exists for those who want to do the hardcore 10%, 5%, often even 0.1%. But we also have the responsibility that, as the default and OSM-hosted editor, Potlatch needs to be approachable and understandable. I'm also a little aware (having optimised the CategorySelector stuff yesterday) that the tagging code is way complicated as it is and probably doesn't need any more edge cases lest my head explode. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-dev-Suggestion-for-lifecycle-tag-comments-tp6029585p6031319.html Sent from the Potlatch mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for lifecycle tag - comments?
Actually, what I forgot to say was... Potlatch, 1 or 2, has always been a 90-10 editor. Make the 90% of mapping easy, and the 10% possible. ...and with P2, we can now make it both a 90-10 editor and a 99-1 editor. That's why we have user-selectable stylesheets, and in particular the 'Enhanced' one. That's why I did a bunch of work on enabling XML and CSS files to have nested includes, so that we can do this without repeating ourselves. And so on. User-selectable map_features.xml will be the next step. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-dev-Suggestion-for-lifecycle-tag-comments-tp6029585p6031355.html Sent from the Potlatch mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for lifecycle tag - comments?
No, it won't, for reasons already explained by Nop. Moreover the current system has the distinct advantage that it can be used to describe what's on the ground - a stroke of a pen on a planner's chart I disagree, but as this is a distraction from the actual discussion at hand, I'll leave it. Which is actually a different thing. What I'm suggesting is that proposed and construction would be two more icons on the grid of road types, whereas you are suggesting the lifecycle should be a dropdown on every single one of the hundreds of thousands of normal roads. It's quite unfair to compare two icons against hundreds of thousands of normal roads. The fair comparison would be a minimum of 3 icons (road, rail, footpath/cycleway) against one dropdown box. Pretty unnecessary, imo. I think you're misunderstanding the current purpose of the simple tab - providing a simple UI for the majority of the mapping. Proposed buildings is pretty niche, and should be incorporated in a way becoming of its niche-ness. Adding dropdowns over every object for such a rare occurrence is the messy way. Ok, proposed buildings are niche. Roads under construction aren't. Maybe this is some philosophical difference we're going to need to debate out, but I see covering these tags properly as comprehensive, complete and thorough - not messy. Yes, the UI needs to be designed in a way to maximise access to common tagging tasks - I've even created tickets to that effect. But the trade-off you're suggesting between simplicity and completeness is artificial, imho. So here are three potential solutions: 1 put tags like this on a tab called advanced, which simple users don't have to use. 2 hide tags like this unless some user option called advanced is enabled. 3 put tags like this only in an enhanced map_features.xml. the tagging code is way complicated In CategorySelector? I'll have to have a look. Steve ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for lifecycle tag - comments?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I'm also a little aware (having optimised the CategorySelector stuff yesterday) Btw - awesome. :) Steve ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for lifecycle tag - comments?
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, Thought I'd solicit comments before implementing the following: feature tag k=highway v=tertiary lifecycle=road/ inputSet ref=road_lifecycle/ ... /feature inputSet id=road_lifecycle input type=choice presence=onTagMatch name=Life-cycle lifecycle=yes choice value= text=Complete description=Road is open for business./ choice value=proposed text=Proposed description=Road has official approval, but construction has not started./ choice value=construction text=Under construction description=Road is under construction./ ... /input /inputSet lifecycle id=road stageproposed/stage stageconstruction/stage stageabandoned/stage ... /lifecycle This would have the effect that highway=proposed, proposed=tertiary would get matched (thanks to the lifecycle definition). Selecting from a dropdown with lifecycle attribute set would cause the same split tag structure to be created (or removed). (That same attribute would cause the key attribute on the lifecycle element to get set to the tag on the feature that has the lifecycle attribute - a bit ugly) Anyway think the element names could be refined slightly. Are there any other tags that work this way, apart from the lifecycle ones? Do different tags have different lifecycles (I seem to recall that railways have more states). Should I just hard-code it all? My first thought is to just have another couple of highway types ( a proposed highway and a highway under construction ) with a list of classifications in a choice input, and maybe some date inputs for when they are opening and so on. That could all be done quite easily with the current map_features code, and more importantly, there would be no unnecessary UI for managing the lifecycle of the 99.999% of roads in OSM that are neither proposed nor under construction. Cheers, Andy ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for lifecycle tag - comments?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote: My first thought is to just have another couple of highway types ( a proposed highway and a highway under construction ) with a list of classifications in a choice input, and maybe some date inputs for when they are opening and so on. My feeling is that proposed is really not a type of highway, and that eventually this tagging scheme will be replaced by something a little less idiosyncratic: highway=tertiary lifecycle=proposed That could all be done quite easily with the current map_features code, and more importantly, there would be no unnecessary UI for managing the lifecycle of the 99.999% of roads in OSM that are neither proposed nor under construction. Ok, first, I don't think the UI would be different either way. All the code would be happening behind the scenes, to make a simple UI: simply an extra dropdown on a misc tab or something. I think what you're proposing shapes the UI too much around the underlying tagging scheme. And I don't think you could change from one lifecycle stage to another through the Simple view. For example, if you changed from Proposed road highway=proposed proposed=tertiary to Road under construction, you'd actually get: highway=construction construction=tertiary proposed=tertiary Not to mention you'd need to duplicate all the road types for every life cycle stage. You'd also need to add proposed railway, proposed cycleway, proposed foothpath, proposed track, proposed bridleway, proposed building, etc etc (and repeat for construction etc). Pretty messy, no? Steve ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
