On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Richard Fairhurst
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.openstreet
> 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.
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
'Enhanc
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 a
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> 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
PS: We have the same use case with abandoned railroads.
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-dev-Suggestion-for-lifecycle-tag-comments-tp6029585p6030993.html
Sent from the Potlatch mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_
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?
>
Hi!
Steve Bennett-3 wrote:
>
> 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 is exactly the one thing we must avoid. Becau
