Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
Oct 30, 2020, 16:33 by talk@openstreetmap.org: > A split polygon with only an outer MP is not an "area". > It is a valid multipolygon representing an area. A bit pointless multipolygon and maybe something that should be converted to version not using relation, but it is a valid tagging. > There's a clue in the name 'MultiPolygon' there has to be more than one. > Strictly speaking it means that it CAN have more than one part. > Splitting into two serves no purpose, adds no quality. > It does not make it invalid > Incomplete MP relations are not beneficial to OSM quality. > MP with single outer and 0 inners is not invalid. (this does not make it desired and preferable, but in this case accusing iD of producing invalid relations is baseless and invalid) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
Am 30.10.2020 um 16:33 schrieb Dave F: But anyway... Point slit stands: Why did iD take this authoritarian position. Already pointed this out n-times now: because it synthesizes an area object type. As has been noted other, editors don't make this assumption. Other editors don't try to synthesize an area type. A split polygon with only an outer MP is not an "area". It is, you are really totally mistaken on this. Particularly if you are reusing ways that are parts of other MPs it is quite common to have an MP with a sole outer ring composed of multiple ways (aka a "split polygon"). That it is typically unnecessary in the case of a building doesn't make it invalid. Simon The correct solution to split polygons with tags on the ways is to rejoin those ways, not create a MP. As I pointed out, the question is -when- to rejoin those ways. As I pointed out, that's for the contributor to decide, not the editor. A MP with only one* outer is invalid. Nope. There's a clue in the name 'MultiPolygon' there has to be more than one. Splitting into two serves no purpose, adds no quality. Entropy isn't beneficial for the OSM database. Incomplete MP relations are not beneficial to OSM quality. DaveF OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
On 29/10/2020 06:41, Simon Poole wrote: Am 29.10.2020 um 00:17 schrieb Dave F: iD editor attracts a hell of a lot of "WTFs", doesn't it? I mean, even its most ardent fan must occasionally raise a Roger Moore eyebrow. bhuousel has taken the presumptive decision that the contributor's desired end result will always be a MP relation. This is wrong, plain & simple (& quite arrogant). iD editor should provide tools to allow contributors to make their own decisions as easily as possible & not take them on their behalf. I'm not sure why you believe Bryan has or had anything to do with that specific design decision, but he didn't, that happened a substantial time before he had any formal involvement. Because he was the only one to reply to github queries (2018) on this subject. He closed the query & he talks in the first person: "I'm OK with this being hard to do in iD." But anyway... Point slit stands: Why did iD take this authoritarian position. As has been noted other, editors don't make this assumption. Other editors don't try to synthesize an area type. A split polygon with only an outer MP is not an "area". The correct solution to split polygons with tags on the ways is to rejoin those ways, not create a MP. As I pointed out, the question is -when- to rejoin those ways. As I pointed out, that's for the contributor to decide, not the editor. A MP with only one* outer is invalid. Nope. There's a clue in the name 'MultiPolygon' there has to be more than one. Splitting into two serves no purpose, adds no quality. Entropy isn't beneficial for the OSM database. Incomplete MP relations are not beneficial to OSM quality. DaveF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
Am 29.10.2020 um 00:17 schrieb Dave F: iD editor attracts a hell of a lot of "WTFs", doesn't it? I mean, even its most ardent fan must occasionally raise a Roger Moore eyebrow. bhuousel has taken the presumptive decision that the contributor's desired end result will always be a MP relation. This is wrong, plain & simple (& quite arrogant). iD editor should provide tools to allow contributors to make their own decisions as easily as possible & not take them on their behalf. I'm not sure why you believe Bryan has or had anything to do with that specific design decision, but he didn't, that happened a substantial time before he had any formal involvement. As has been noted other, editors don't make this assumption. Other editors don't try to synthesize an area type. The correct solution to split polygons with tags on the ways is to rejoin those ways, not create a MP. As I pointed out, the question is -when- to rejoin those ways. A MP with only one* outer is invalid. Nope. * splitting it still means there's only one. Relations were created to allow mapping of entities, not possible with just ways. They aren't meant to be the default for all objects. See above. Simon DaveF On 27/10/2020 08:11, Simon Poole wrote: Its done that essentially since day one. As Bryce points out doing so keeps the object a valid "area" (and iD makes a valiant effort to stop you from breaking that). It is also one of my favourite examples in talks why trying to keep things simple for the user is very difficult and some times counterproductive. Lots of people have had the wtf moment when they come along a multi-polgon consisting of just one ring built from two ways. The problem is that once the user has split the polygon, there is no obvious point in time were you can be sure that the user is finished with it and you could simplify, particularly when you are trying to get the user to save often and early. So the simplification for the iD user comes at the expense of wtf's of everybody else. Simon Am 27.10.2020 um 02:05 schrieb Dave F via talk: Hi I don't use iD editor much, but I've just discovered it auto-converts closed polygons which are split (Shortcut Key = X) into MP relations. I'm struggling to comprehend a logical reason for this. Is there one? If there's been a previous discussion which I've missed please post a link. There's a couple of threads on iD's github issues, bhousel closed them with "wontfix - I Saw A Thing I Didn't Like (but is valid in OSM). It may be valid, but is it desirable or helpful? I split closed ways, in P2, for various reasons without wanting them to be converted. How many newbies would even know what a MP relation is? Having them as as split tagged ways is just as "valid". More so, considering splitting long ways is desirable. DaveF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
On 27/10/2020 03:56, Bryce Cogswell wrote: I agree it’s a little counterintuitive for experienced users but I understand the rationale: If you’re splitting a building (closed way) how is the result valid unless it’s converted to a multipolygon? The editor is presuming the splitting of the way is the final & desired result of the contributor. This is wrong. DaveF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
iD editor attracts a hell of a lot of "WTFs", doesn't it? I mean, even its most ardent fan must occasionally raise a Roger Moore eyebrow. bhuousel has taken the presumptive decision that the contributor's desired end result will always be a MP relation. This is wrong, plain & simple (& quite arrogant). iD editor should provide tools to allow contributors to make their own decisions as easily as possible & not take them on their behalf. As has been noted other, editors don't make this assumption. The correct solution to split polygons with tags on the ways is to rejoin those ways, not create a MP. A MP with only one* outer is invalid. * splitting it still means there's only one. Relations were created to allow mapping of entities, not possible with just ways. They aren't meant to be the default for all objects. DaveF On 27/10/2020 08:11, Simon Poole wrote: Its done that essentially since day one. As Bryce points out doing so keeps the object a valid "area" (and iD makes a valiant effort to stop you from breaking that). It is also one of my favourite examples in talks why trying to keep things simple for the user is very difficult and some times counterproductive. Lots of people have had the wtf moment when they come along a multi-polgon consisting of just one ring built from two ways. The problem is that once the user has split the polygon, there is no obvious point in time were you can be sure that the user is finished with it and you could simplify, particularly when you are trying to get the user to save often and early. So the simplification for the iD user comes at the expense of wtf's of everybody else. Simon Am 27.10.2020 um 02:05 schrieb Dave F via talk: Hi I don't use iD editor much, but I've just discovered it auto-converts closed polygons which are split (Shortcut Key = X) into MP relations. I'm struggling to comprehend a logical reason for this. Is there one? If there's been a previous discussion which I've missed please post a link. There's a couple of threads on iD's github issues, bhousel closed them with "wontfix - I Saw A Thing I Didn't Like (but is valid in OSM). It may be valid, but is it desirable or helpful? I split closed ways, in P2, for various reasons without wanting them to be converted. How many newbies would even know what a MP relation is? Having them as as split tagged ways is just as "valid". More so, considering splitting long ways is desirable. DaveF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
Its done that essentially since day one. As Bryce points out doing so keeps the object a valid "area" (and iD makes a valiant effort to stop you from breaking that). It is also one of my favourite examples in talks why trying to keep things simple for the user is very difficult and some times counterproductive. Lots of people have had the wtf moment when they come along a multi-polgon consisting of just one ring built from two ways. The problem is that once the user has split the polygon, there is no obvious point in time were you can be sure that the user is finished with it and you could simplify, particularly when you are trying to get the user to save often and early. So the simplification for the iD user comes at the expense of wtf's of everybody else. Simon Am 27.10.2020 um 02:05 schrieb Dave F via talk: Hi I don't use iD editor much, but I've just discovered it auto-converts closed polygons which are split (Shortcut Key = X) into MP relations. I'm struggling to comprehend a logical reason for this. Is there one? If there's been a previous discussion which I've missed please post a link. There's a couple of threads on iD's github issues, bhousel closed them with "wontfix - I Saw A Thing I Didn't Like (but is valid in OSM). It may be valid, but is it desirable or helpful? I split closed ways, in P2, for various reasons without wanting them to be converted. How many newbies would even know what a MP relation is? Having them as as split tagged ways is just as "valid". More so, considering splitting long ways is desirable. DaveF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk OpenPGP_0x4721711092E282EA.asc Description: application/pgp-keys OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
On 10/26/20 22:56, Bryce Cogswell via talk wrote: > I agree it’s a little counterintuitive for experienced users but I > understand the rationale: If you’re splitting a building (closed way) > how is the result valid unless it’s converted to a multipolygon? JOSM has no issue splitting a closed way into two separate closed ways. It's entirely possible the user wants to have two separate buildings (happens frequently when MapWithAI/RapID mistakenly decides that two or three (or more) closely packed buildings are one big building). -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
I agree it’s a little counterintuitive for experienced users but I understand the rationale: If you’re splitting a building (closed way) how is the result valid unless it’s converted to a multipolygon? > On Oct 26, 2020, at 6:09 PM, Dave F via talk wrote: > > Hi > > I don't use iD editor much, but I've just discovered it auto-converts closed > polygons which are split (Shortcut Key = X) into MP relations. > > I'm struggling to comprehend a logical reason for this. Is there one? If > there's been a previous discussion which I've missed please post a link. > > There's a couple of threads on iD's github issues, bhousel closed them with > "wontfix - I Saw A Thing I Didn't Like (but is valid in OSM). > > It may be valid, but is it desirable or helpful? I split closed ways, in P2, > for various reasons without wanting them to be converted. How many newbies > would even know what a MP relation is? > > Having them as as split tagged ways is just as "valid". More so, considering > splitting long ways is desirable. > > DaveF > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] id Editor auto-converts split polygons into MP relation
Hi I don't use iD editor much, but I've just discovered it auto-converts closed polygons which are split (Shortcut Key = X) into MP relations. I'm struggling to comprehend a logical reason for this. Is there one? If there's been a previous discussion which I've missed please post a link. There's a couple of threads on iD's github issues, bhousel closed them with "wontfix - I Saw A Thing I Didn't Like (but is valid in OSM). It may be valid, but is it desirable or helpful? I split closed ways, in P2, for various reasons without wanting them to be converted. How many newbies would even know what a MP relation is? Having them as as split tagged ways is just as "valid". More so, considering splitting long ways is desirable. DaveF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
