A simple/complex switch in an existing editor is a nice idea. I didn't suggest it because Potlatch is the obvious candidate and I know nothing about Flash programming, so couldn't offer to help do that - I would have a bit more chance with a Java applet, but I am a bit old fashioned like that!
Javascript would be the obvious next choice after Flash, but I find it very hard to de-bug and it always feels a bit un-responsive to me, but that may well be the networking rather than the program itself. Graham. On 25 February 2010 21:13, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 February 2010 09:47, Graham Jones <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> We could then have a nice banner on the bottom of the screen pointing to >> the descriptions of the other editors that would allow you to add or change >> geometries. >> >> > +1 > > I think the app should provide some form of stepping stone functionality > for more advanced tools. > > For future discussion, once scope has been determined: Would it be an idea > to provide a toggle between simple mode & complex mode inside of Potlatch, > rather than build a completely new editor? Potlatch could default to simple > mode to prevent scaring off new contributors, but provide more complex > operations with one click. > > >> Graham. >> >> >> On 25 February 2010 20:29, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Liz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > I would suggest that Potlatch is left alone for its devotees. >>> > >>> > I'd start with the following in the design brief for the "Newbie >>> Editor" >>> > Can add nodes, label them with default tags only (other than name). >>> > Can add ways, again default tag list only, other than name. >>> > Very limited deletion ability (no clear idea yet on how to define >>> this). >>> >>> I suspect starting at even this level of complexity would cause >>> feature creep towards Potlatch, anyway...In particular, being able to >>> add/edit ways requires handling many complex concepts (as others have >>> brought up), like joining ways, way direction, overlapping ways, etc. >>> >>> How about an even bigger step back? If starting a new editor from >>> scratch is to be worthwhile, surely it should be a LOT more basic than >>> all other existing editors. i.e. how about only these features: >>> >>> 1) Add POI >>> User specifies: >>> a) where it is >>> b) what it is (choose from a single list of options) >>> c) the name >>> >>> 2) Edit Name >>> e.g. add or fix the name of an existing road - this should help a >>> lot with noname roads >>> >> -- Dr. Graham Jones Hartlepool, UK email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
