On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Anthony wrote:
> Longer term though, there should almost surely be a tile based index.
Umm, yeah, please pretend I didn't say that :).
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> No, seriously, it would be great if someone found a way to modify the API
>> (more precisely, the cgimap program) so that it accepts requests for larger
>> bounding boxes in sparsely mapped
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> No, seriously, it would be great if someone found a way to modify the API
> (more precisely, the cgimap program) so that it accepts requests for larger
> bounding boxes in sparsely mapped areas. It is probably not easy to do this
> in a perfo
+1 on this idea
I have used josm since I started with osm but still end up clicking fairly
randomly on these icons. A menu would be way better.
Kevin
On 24 Jan 2011 22:41, "M∡rtin Koppenhoefer" wrote:
2011/1/24 Sebastian Klein :
> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> If I take notes of which parts I find le
Hi,
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
(And, if my memory
serves, you get slapped on the wrist for trying to download too much.)
based on a formula which is related to the number of square kilometres
involved, and which has no relation to the amount of data involved.
It is presented as a restriction from t
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:25:00 +1100
Steve Bennett wrote:
> (And, if my memory
> serves, you get slapped on the wrist for trying to download too much.)
based on a formula which is related to the number of square kilometres
involved, and which has no relation to the amount of data involved.
It is p
colliar-3 wrote:
>
> Am 25.01.2011 02:44, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
>>
>> One issue I have is this: I often import selected ways (such as railways)
>> in
>> an area from xapi and then edit them, adding new ones and deleting bad
>> ones.
>> (On upload if I deleted something that's referenced by
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 17:25 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> But in JOSM you have to explicitly download data,
> manipulate it, then explicitly upload it again. (And, if my memory
> serves, you get slapped on the wrist for trying to download too
> much.)
yes - precisely why I use josm
--
regards
KG
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Sebastian Klein
wrote:
> Yes, concrete ideas for improvement would be appreciated.
One thing I found very offputting was the conceptual model required
that "map data" itself is an object you have to process. In Potlatch,
there is minimal distinction between the vi
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 9:22 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> If you are annoyed by plugins that break everything (does indeed
> happen, but rarely), simply don't install them. Stuff that has proven
> generally useful and stable will usually get integrated in the main
> code basis.
Alright, cool.
Am 25.01.2011 02:44, schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
>
> One issue I have is this: I often import selected ways (such as railways) in
> an area from xapi and then edit them, adding new ones and deleting bad ones.
> (On upload if I deleted something that's referenced by a non-downloaded
> object I get a
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:40 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2011/1/24 Sebastian Klein :
>> Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> If I take notes of which parts I find least intuitive (the parts I
>>> have to RTFM about, like how to reopen those right-side toolbarish
>>> windows), would anyone be interested in
Anthony-6 wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>> Yes, if you try
>> and use Potlatch to show several thousand objects you are certifiably
>> insane. If you want to work in a JOSM-like manner, use JOSM!
>
> Good points. I think that's a big part of it. I ten
2011/1/24 Sebastian Klein :
> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> If I take notes of which parts I find least intuitive (the parts I
>> have to RTFM about, like how to reopen those right-side toolbarish
>> windows), would anyone be interested in them?
>
> Yes, concrete ideas for improvement would be appreciated.
2011/1/24 Anthony :
> I assume there's no way to do "load on demand" in JOSM?
well, you load what you want, but you have to do it manually. Loading
is blocking in JOSM, which has a big advantage: you know that all data
was loaded before you edit.
cheers,
Martin
_
Anthony wrote:
If I take notes of which parts I find least intuitive (the parts I
have to RTFM about, like how to reopen those right-side toolbarish
windows), would anyone be interested in them?
Yes, concrete ideas for improvement would be appreciated.
Certain things I'm aware of, e.g. there s
On 01/24/2011 04:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:34 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
I also honestly thought it was the first editor with non-sucky
relations support :)
I just checked and the relations support is much better than it was
last time I used it, and probably better th
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:34 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> I also honestly thought it was the first editor with non-sucky
> relations support :)
I just checked and the relations support is much better than it was
last time I used it, and probably better than PL1 (once I can figure
out how to ge
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:08 AM, MP wrote:
> But Potlatch is much slower, at least for me, once there are several
> thousand primitives in view it will become quite unuseable.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:22 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2011/1/24 Steve Bennett :
>> 3) Poor performance. (On my
On 24 January 2011 02:19, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Vincent Pottier wrote:
>> Le 24/01/2011 00:25, Anthony a écrit :
>>>
>>> I'm not quite sure why, but I really don't like JOSM. Of the four
>>> main editors (others being PL1, PL2, and Merkaartor), it's my least
>>> favor
Martin wrote:
> I am not sure for newer potlatch, but the few times I was forced to
> use it (why the hell there is undelete api available only for Potlatch
> and not as XML?)
Hey, calm down. Less of the "why the hell", please.
The reason Potlatch 1 can undelete is because I wrote the undelete
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Come on people. There's enough editors for everyone. There's a ton
> of reasons, for *every* editor, why someone would use or not use
> it. Personally I am glad that this is so
Absolutely.
I'd also add that transferring your expectations of how one editor works
onto anot
2011/1/24 Steve Bennett :
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> I'm not quite sure why, but I really don't like JOSM.
>
> In my case I think it boils down to:
> 1) Complicated, idiosyncratic user interface. My brain just doesn't
> have space to learn new interfaces. Everything need
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:24:48 +1100, Steve Bennett
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Anthony wrote:
I'm not quite sure why, but I really don't like JOSM.
In my case I think it boils down to:
1) Complicated, idiosyncratic user interface. My brain just doesn't
have space to learn new int
Hello I agree with Frederik
i was saying that Steve's message was rubbish
As Greta Garbo would say: one of us needs to improve his English
will it be me?
--Oscar
--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Frederik Ramm wrote:
From: Frederik Ramm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Why I don't use JOSM (w
In the same way I try to convince long-time JOSM users to once again look
at Potlatch2 you should also have another look at JOSM if you tried
fiddling with it once. It is not that bad at the moment.
But I also use Potlatch2 more often than JOSM now. But mostly for casual
editing...
Groet,
Floris
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> I'm not quite sure why, but I really don't like JOSM.
>
> 4) General preference for online tools (so I don't need to synchronise
> environments across different computers)
You may use portable installation of JOSM on flash drive on any comput
Hi,
On 01/24/2011 09:23 AM, Oscar Orbe wrote:
#rubbish
Come on people. There's enough editors for everyone. There's a ton of
reasons, for *every* editor, why someone would use or not use it.
Personally I am glad that this is so; I think the needs of different
users are much better served by
#rubbish
--- On Mon, 1/24/11, Steve Bennett wrote:
From: Steve Bennett
Subject: [OSM-talk] Why I don't use JOSM (was Re: Non-map-based OSM editor)
To: "Anthony"
Cc: "Open Street Map mailing list"
Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 7:24 AM
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:25
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 18:24 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote:
> It looks like a fantastically powerful tool, and I wish all those who
> use it the very best. But I'm probably one of those few people who
> actually moved from JOSM *to* Potlatch.
it *is* a fantastic tool - with the connectivity I usually
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Anthony wrote:
> I'm not quite sure why, but I really don't like JOSM.
In my case I think it boils down to:
1) Complicated, idiosyncratic user interface. My brain just doesn't
have space to learn new interfaces. Everything needs to behave the
same.
2) Fragility.
31 matches
Mail list logo
