Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for "lifecycle" tag - comments?
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Andy Allan 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
Re: [Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for "lifecycle" tag - comments?
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Hi all, > Thought I'd solicit comments before implementing the following: > > > > ... > > > > > > > description="Road is under construction."/> > ... > > > > > > proposed > construction > abandoned > ... > > > This would have the effect that "highway=proposed, proposed=tertiary" > would get matched (thanks to the 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
[Potlatch-dev] Suggestion for "lifecycle" tag - comments?
Hi all, Thought I'd solicit comments before implementing the following: ... ... proposed construction abandoned ... This would have the effect that "highway=proposed, proposed=tertiary" would get matched (thanks to the 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? Steve ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] How about another build?
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Andy Allan wrote: > Ah, I've just done this a different way, and then read your email. Ho-hum! Interesting - I'd totally forgotten about my above suggestion. I actually implemented something extremely similar to your implementation (http://trac.openstreetmap.org/changeset/25309) but didn't get around to checking it in. Cool. :) Steve ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
Re: [Potlatch-dev] How about another build?
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Just checking before I implement this* and then find out there was > another reason that I missed. Ah, I've just done this a different way, and then read your email. Ho-hum! > Also, what is the thinking around the text part of the element? > It seems a bit under-developed. Perhaps a more explicit > element which explains what the entity represents (eg, text from the > wiki), and a or something which uses string substitution to > summarise the entity? There's already a description element for the feature, see e.g. stream. I'm currently working on exposing this in the UI but I don't think it's actually used anywhere at the moment. Cheers, Andy ___ Potlatch-dev mailing list Potlatch-dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
