[Talk-de] Potlatch and relation handling
(Sorry, tried to send this yesterday but my subscription to talk-de appeared to have died! Apologies in advance for posting in English.) Tirkon's claim about Potlatch and relation handling is complete nonsense. To edit a relation in Potlatch 2: * select a node or way which is a member of that relation * select 'Advanced' on the left to see the relation list * double-click the relation Then, click 'Members' to see the members in order. You can change the order by dragging the list entries. To add this relation to another, 'parent' relation, click 'Advanced' and then 'Add to'. So there you go, full support for nested and ordered relations. Tirkon, I would be grateful if you would stop repeating the claim that there is no support. Martin, I've long since stopped expecting anything you say to be founded in any form of reality. Richard ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Potlatch and relation handling
2011/12/13 Richard Fairhurst : > So there you go, full support for nested and ordered relations. happy to see this (actually I discovered it myself just a few hours ago). > Martin, I've long since stopped expecting anything you say to be > founded in any form of reality. LOL, that's a good one. I was basing my comment on what you (or some other Richard Fairhurst?) were writing more then once to the lists, examples: 1. http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Odd-Potlatch-2-rendering-td5892790.html RichardF: "Potlatch 2 will only draw multipolygons which consist of 1 outer way and 1+ inner ways, and where the tags are on the outer way. This multipolygon has several outer ways so will not be rendered properly. You could call this a bug but, to be honest, if people are going to invent insanely complicated relation structures (aka "advanced multipolygons") and completely go against existing OSM tagging practice (putting way tags on relations), I feel no obligation to waste a week of my life supporting it. It would be an exceptionally complex one to fix, as you'd potentially need to load extra data from the server if all the outer ways weren't in the current bbox. " 2. http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/4048#comment:1 -> a few weeks ago you closed a trac ticket concerning this issue with the comment "won't fix". 3. http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/osm2pgsql-and-only-named-multipolygons-tt6858105.html Richard:"So for the tools I contribute to, principally P2 and an upcoming Ruby PDF renderer, I've taken a decision not to spend time on anything more than rudimentary multipolygon support (one outer, tags on outer way), rather than spending a month coding all-singing-all-dancing support and then have to rewrite it when the area tag comes along. YMalmost certainlyV. :) " and: "Frederik Ramm wrote: > While multipolygons with more than one outer *ring* are uncommon, > those with more than one outer *way* are heavily used where I live That's all right, everyone where you live uses JOSM anyway. :) The issue from my point of view is one of UI. I can't countenance a UI, or a render, that is any different for tagging shapes depending on whether they have holes in or not. So P2's tagging code would need to get some layer of indirection saying "if this is a multipolygon, the tag panel needs to deal with the relation tags, unless there are already tags on the way. Otherwise it needs to deal with the way tags". Meanwhile, the rendering code would need to render fills differently for items with more than one outer way (which is additionally complicated by the fact they might not all be loaded yet). That's far too much like brainache for me to want to code, especially when that code will need rewriting in a year or so. But if someone else who does come from a land where people use bonkers complicated multipolygons came up with a decent patch, I imagine we'd be very happy to accept it. " So in the end I am happy that someone recently coded the missing relation support for Potlatch2, but given your statements from previous discussions (as well as you closing relative tickets with "won't fix") wasn't really encouraging to think that this has been done in the past few weeks. Neither do I recall any announcement about this huge progress, nor would I have guessed this from the developer's comments on git: https://github.com/openstreetmap/potlatch2/commits/master?page=1 cheers, Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Potlatch and relation handling
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > So in the end I am happy that someone recently coded the > missing relation support for Potlatch2, but given your > statements from previous discussions (as well as you closing > relative tickets with "won't fix") wasn't really encouraging to > think that this has been done in the past few weeks. What on earth are you on about? Potlatch 2 has full support for nested and ordered relations. Potlatch 2 has _always_ had full support for nested and ordered relations. That is what Tirkon was disputing in his wiki posting to which http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2011-December/090998.html referred; that is what you supported in the follow-up message, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2011-December/091009.html; and that is what I was correcting. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether Potlatch 2 has an abstraction model for one particular (broken) tagging paradigm, by which tags created in simple mode are applied to a 'containing' multipolygon relation rather than the way itself. That is the subject of your trac tickets. I have already explained why, given the likelihood of a proper area datatype to replace this nasty hack, I will not spend my own time coding that; but suggested: "If you want it to be changed to additionally support tagging the relation, submit a good patch. I will be happy to help with the coding and UI issues for this patch." and again: "if someone else who does come from a land where people use bonkers complicated multipolygons came up with a decent patch, I imagine we'd be very happy to accept it." But I realise that would require you to actually do some work rather than just endlessly, parasitically criticising others' work on the mailing lists. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-and-relation-handling-tp7089701p7089929.html Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Potlatch and relation handling
2011/12/13 Richard Fairhurst : > But I realise that would require you to actually do some work rather than > just endlessly, parasitically criticising others' work on the mailing lists. I do not think you have necessarily to be able to code Flash and improve Potlatch to be allowed to criticize it or point out bugs. After all it is still the most promoted editor (default editor on the start page, first shown and advertized "for beginners" in the beginner's tutorial). Btw: I am not aware of the concept of "parasitical criticism", what do you intent? -> reply offlist preferred to keep the noise low cheers, Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Potlatch and relation handling
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Btw: I am not aware of the concept of "parasitical criticism", what do > you intent? -> reply offlist preferred to keep the noise low Replied offlist. Richard ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
Re: [Talk-de] Potlatch and relation handling
"Richard Fairhurst" wrote: >Tirkon, I >would be grateful if you would stop repeating the claim that there is no >support. Hi Richard, The last time I used Potlatch, it did not work. So I changed to JOSM. Because I did not know this for sure I brought this question up at the discussion page of "remapping": http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Remapping But nobody had disagreed within more than two weeks so far. Thus I took it into the text. Thanks for clearing that up. But you deleted accidently more than this statement. Thus I have reinserted the rest: Be aware that every node and way can be a member of a relation and their parent-relations. It is recommended, to study and note down the structure of these relations before you delete any node and thus destroy relations i.e public transport, referenced roads (i.e. motorways), bicycle routes, borders and multipolygons. After replacing ways and nodes the old structure of the relations has to be reestablished. ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
