Hi, Xav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > With my experience in developing OSB, I would say that Christoph just > resumed it quite right : the server side software is a piece of cake > and should propose a simple API to insert/edit/delete and view the > data (JSON, RSS, GPX).
That sounds good. I will see at the weekend if it really is a piece of cake. Would it be possible to reuse and extend the client-side code from osb for a web-based client-side interface? > Because everybody has its own idea of what should be specified in the > data (bug status, email, classification, age of john's mother), why > not to copy OSM : tags. > > Think of it... I thought about using a general tag scheme too, but I think its not a good solution for a bugtracker. Bug reports are mostly free-form text already and contain only structured information to remind people to supply certain bits of information and to handle processing of the bug reports. So, I do not think bug reporters will ever feel the desire add tags to their bug reports. In fact, it would probably confuse most people. Developers of user interfaces for the bug tracker might however want to have more structured information. But this is probably only a small group of people who can decide which information a bug report should contain. Especially it would not help anyone if bug reports contain different information depending which user interface was used to add them to the database. Just imagine the situation where a user adds a bug through the web interface and a mapper requests the bugs with JOSM. Both pieces of software need to use the same model of information in the report and the same concept of how to process the bug report. Additionally, I think defining a bug report format is not like defining a database structure to describe the whole world but more like finding one for describing a residential street. Implementing a general tag scheme just postpones the decision of what to put in a bug report in my opinion. > The server side already exists : it's basically OSM database without > ways, with a guest account, and accepting long string values (the > text users could add). That is really attractive. The only problems I can see here (apart from that we still should try to define a bug report format) are that annotations to a bug report like comments, images and attachments cannot be stored in the osm database (as far as I know). Another question is how the introduction of changesets in the api 0.6 affects very small edits. Creating a changeset for every bug which is added to the database might turn out to be very inefficient memorywise. > A lot of clients already exists : JOSM, Potlatch, Mapnik, trillions > of scripts, etc. But they still need interfaces to handle the bug reports in a user friendly way. Christoph _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
