Hi,
On 5/28/19 10:32, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
> approach for the community.
(with my OSMF board hat on)
I would like to make it clear that nothing of what I or any other OSMF
board member has said in this thread or any other
On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 16:48, Jo wrote:
>
> This has been discussed on the public transport list very recently, but as
> usual, without any resolution one way or the other. Status quo rules.
OT: I haven't forgotten that topic, i'm just a bit too busy right now
(private and on OSM). I'll resume
Am 28.05.19 um 10:32 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Perhaps it is possible to have a forked iD that does not work by
> meticulously cherry-picking every new change that is added to iD
> (because that would be too much work), but instead - a bit like the
> mechanisms when building a Debian or Ubunutu
I would support a forked version of iD as a default editor on the home page.
I think OpenStreetMap is mature and complex enough now to start using
techniques like change management which are used in the IT world to manage
change. It is common practice in corporate IT.
Cheerio John
On Tue, May
28 May 2019, 10:32 by frede...@remote.org:
> Hi,
>
> On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> As I see it we can choose between
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
>> commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)
>>
>
> I think this would
Hi,
On 27.05.19 12:07, Simon Poole wrote:
> As I see it we can choose between
[...]
> - deploy from a forked iD that is selective with respect to which
> commits are integrated (IMHO too much work)
I think this would definitely be the healthiest and most common-sense
approach for the
Am 27.05.2019 um 12:58 schrieb Christoph Hormann:
> ..
> I think this is a too limited view of the options the OSM community has.
I don't think I claimed to explore every possible sub-variant.
> I in particular see:
>
> * a wide range of possibilities to offer iD on osm.org but not exactly
>
On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> I admit I am not convinced that it addresses the problem.
>
> I think that problem in in specific validator rule that is clearly
> unwanted by general community* and it does not matter when and how it
> appears.
Yes, i agree for this particular
27 May 2019, 19:38 by o...@imagico.de:
> On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>>
>> By default iD actively suggests to
>> - change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
>> - objects selected by user during editing
>>
>
> Wouldn't it be relatively simple to change the default to
On Monday 27 May 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> By default iD actively suggests to
> - change objects modified by user (like JOSM)
> - objects selected by user during editing
Wouldn't it be relatively simple to change the default to only touch
features modified by the user in the version
27 May 2019, 17:51 by o...@imagico.de:
> actively modifying features the mapper has not touched in
> their fundamental semantics. As already hinted i know too little about
> how iD works to specifically say something about how it fits in here.
>
By default iD actively suggests to
- change
On 27/05/2019 16:26, Frederik Ramm wrote:
AFAIK many editors for example silently drop "created-by" and didn't
hear anyone complain about that.
That's a bit different. "created-by" was, err,,, created by the
developers of the API/editors. Contributors never added it themselves.
It hasn't
On Monday 27 May 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >
> > it seems clear to me that any tool that leads mappers to
> > unconsciously perform automated edits could and should be blocked
> > from write access to the API and accordingly should not be
> > available on osm.org.
>
> I guess that in cases
Hi,
On 5/27/19 12:58, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> * Automated Edits code of conduct
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct)
>> : You take advantage of mappers unconsciously adding highway=footway
>> to platforms. This is an automated edit.
> it seems clear to me
For a very long time I have been trying to adopt the public_transport
scheme. After several years of asking it would be rendered on its own
without the need for highway=bus_stop tags, I'm giving up on it and came to
the conclusion that
highway=bus_stop on nodes next to the highway
and
On 27/05/2019 12:23, Phil Wyatt wrote:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dplatform
This suggests replacing highway=platform with public_transport=platform
Most of the public_transport=* tags are pure duplicates of existing,
more popular tags. They add nothing to the OSM
Am Mo., 27. Mai 2019 um 15:23 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend :
> Occasionally there are examples of people
> accepting suggestions like this without thinking, and what I'd normally
> do in such cases is to comment on the changeset concerned and politely
> explain why in this particular case the
On 27/05/2019 12:08, Jo wrote:
And the disease is spreading:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jnd
I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?
Suggestions about tag improvements by an editor are not a new thing -
JOSM has had them for ages. Occasionally there are examples of people
In case that this is an undesirable wrong tagging one may request JOSM dev
to add validator rule fixing this.
You may also propose worldwide bot edit reverting such changes.
(note, I am not sure whatever either is a good idea, it is one of reasons why I
did neither)
27 May 2019, 13:08 by
] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to
railway/public_transport=platform
I went to check a platform tagged as
highway=platform
which is perfectly alright.
iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:
public_transport=platform
bus=yes
Then upon
And the disease is spreading:
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Jnd
I'm scared. This needs to be mitigated, but indeed, how?
Jo
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 1:03 PM Jo wrote:
> I went to check a platform tagged as
>
> highway=platform
>
> which is perfectly alright.
>
> iD tells me that's deprecated
I went to check a platform tagged as
highway=platform
which is perfectly alright.
iD tells me that's deprecated and suggests to change it to:
public_transport=platform
bus=yes
Then upon uploading it tells me another "improvement" can be made:
highway=footway
So they are transposing
On Monday 27 May 2019, Simon Poole wrote:
> The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
> had exactly 0 effect.
>
> As I see it we can choose between
>
> [...]
I think this is a too limited view of the options the OSM community has.
I in particular see:
* a wide range
Andrew Hain wrote:
> Have a new team of developers code from the codebase of iD.
> Write a new online editor from scratch.
> Abandon online editing and tell everyone to use an offline editor.
Please stop trolling.
Richard
--
Sent from:
[mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2019 8:27 PM
To: Simon Poole; talk@openstreetmap.org; osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway
to railway/public_transport=platform
Also:
Have a new team of developers code
Wiklund Johan wrote:
> Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
> built
> routing engines.
Are there actually any such engines, or is this a post-facto justification?
OSRM has routed over platforms since 8 September 2013. Valhalla does - it's
multimodal and you
...@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to
railway/public_transport=platform
The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
had exactly 0 effect.
As I see it we can choose between
- doing nothing (seems to be most
The problem with this (and the longer thread on tagging), that it has
had exactly 0 effect.
As I see it we can choose between
- doing nothing (seems to be most popular currently)
- wage an edit war by reverting any edits that clearly do not correspond
to best practices (not good)
- put in
On 24/05/2019 10:41, Phil Wyatt wrote:
Hi Folks,
As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging
rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster
Hi Phil
1) Even for newbies, common sense should tell you that railway=platforms
are for the purpose
On 24/05/2019 09:27, Wiklund Johan wrote:
As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of
Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
built routing engines.
Whole heartedly agree. There are far too many routers who can't be
On Fri, 2019-05-24 at 08:27 +, Wiklund Johan wrote:
> As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the
> opinions of Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose
> but to please poorly built routing engines.
I concur
then yes they should also be
added…in my opinion.
Cheers - Phil
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2019 8:02 PM
To: Phil Wyatt
Cc: Wiklund Johan; Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to
railway
On 24/05/2019 09:27, Wiklund Johan wrote:
As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of
Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
built routing engines.
Same here ...
Routing for rail passengers should be handled correctly
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2019 8:02 PM
To: Phil Wyatt
Cc: Wiklund Johan; Talk
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to
railway/public_transport=platform
Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Phil
Am Fr., 24. Mai 2019 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Phil Wyatt :
> Hi Folks,
>
> As a relatively new OSM editor, I tend to agree with the explicit tagging
> rather than implicit - it should help folks learn tags much faster
The problem is that a platform is not a footway, at least not universally.
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to
railway/public_transport=platform
As a frequent mapper of public transport features, I agree with the opinions of
Markus. Adding footway to the platform serves no purpose but to please poorly
built routing engines
: Markus [mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com]
Sent: torsdag 23. mai 2019 18.11
To: Talk
Cc: Bryan Housel
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Remove validation rule asking to add highway=footway to
railway/public_transport=platform
Hello Bryan, hello everyone,
I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
Hello Bryan, hello everyone,
I'm posting this reply to Bryan's message on GitHub
(https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649)
here, as the issue has been locked by Bryan.
> Hey all, I've locked this topic. Inviting other people to jump on the thread
> just to express
38 matches
Mail list logo
