Hi!
On 17/12/11 21:48, Mike N wrote:
On 12/17/2011 9:49 AM, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
I see not that we need a big modification here. Maybe an update of the
wording could be done, so that people do not automatically assume new
is better.
That is a good idea. And since people don't realize
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011, Frederik Ramm wrote:
There is a sad story behind this. From day one, presets were designed to be
distributed. It was never the plan to have one central set of presets that
the JOSM team would maintain and everyone would follow that. The idea was
that interested users
On 18/12/2011 13:46, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
Working together with the autors of other editors also would be a good
idea, but until today all such tries failed miserably.
I suspect what this needs is for one person to just go ahead and
implement something, and for the other editor coders to see
Dirk,
On 12/18/2011 02:46 PM, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
Maybe I'm a bit over-sensitive ATM, but on one hand you blame me that
JOSM depends too much on the server information and on the other hand
you praise exactly these feature and would like to have them extended?
What I like is when this works
On 18/12/2011 15:12, Frederik Ramm wrote:
But I admit that this is a kind of romantic view because it assumes that
everyone easily has a server available where they could publish their
styles,
Github FTW.
___
josm-dev mailing list
Hi,
On 12/18/2011 04:59 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
But I admit that this is a kind of romantic view because it assumes that
everyone easily has a server available where they could publish their
styles,
Github FTW.
Yeah, I'm sure if one was desperate one could also publish via Facebook
or
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011, Frederik Ramm wrote:
But I admit that this is a kind of romantic view because it assumes that
everyone easily has a server available where they could publish their styles,
and that information about available styles flows freely without the need for
a central directory.
Hi!
On 15/12/11 11:44, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
When was this decided?
I've added the new contact scheme (new according to the Wiki) to the
JOSM presets. There has been an open bug [1] in Trac for several months
without any objections.
The reasons have been:
- contact:* is being used quite
so by no means should we blindly take for gospel what the Wiki says.
but the JOSM presets, yes...
Pieren
___
josm-dev mailing list
josm-dev@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011, Pieren wrote:
so by no means should we blindly take for gospel what the Wiki says.
but the JOSM presets, yes...
That is and was always a critical situation. But the preset was added as
alternative to the included stuff and did not replace it. I think it was
correct
Hi,
On 12/17/2011 03:40 PM, Pieren wrote:
so by no means should we blindly take for gospel what the Wiki says.
but the JOSM presets, yes...
There is a sad story behind this. From day one, presets were designed to
be distributed. It was never the plan to have one central set of presets
On 12/17/2011 9:49 AM, Dirk Stöcker wrote:
I see not that we need a big modification here. Maybe an update of the
wording could be done, so that people do not automatically assume new
is better.
That is a good idea. And since people don't realize that the new
version effectively puts
Recently the JOSM presets changed for fax, phone, website, email (old
keys) to contact:fax, ...
When was this decided? IMHO website is not even a
contact-information in the first place, and looking at actual usage
numbers:
208 408 website
7 116 contact:website
it seems strange to me that this
On 12/15/2011 5:44 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Recently the JOSM presets changed for fax, phone, website, email (old
keys) to contact:fax, ...
When was this decided? IMHO website is not even a
contact-information in the first place, and looking at actual usage
numbers:
208 408 website
7 116
14 matches
Mail list logo
