Hi Bryce, I'm glad I'm not the only one who is of this opinion. You probably formulated it a lot better than I ever did in the tickets to complain about this behaviour.
Anyway Richard, I respect you a lot, but if I notice there is a problem, nobody can expect me/us to remain quiet about it. So I'm sorry for being the bane in your existence and even more sorry you stopped being the lead developer of iD, apparently in part due to these kinds of criticism. As far as the datatypes go, I would be all in favor for the area datatype. I hear a lot of talk about it, and I don't understand why it doesn't materialise. While we're at it, we should 'formalise' a few more of the things we now use relations for. Also it ought to become possible to construct routes from smaller route parts, such that these parts can be reused to construct other routes. When the smaller parts then break, it only takes 1 or 2 repairs instead of 10-100. If the itinerary changes for several bus lines at once, it would also become a lot less effort to update the routes. Kind regards, Polyglot 2015-06-28 7:31 GMT+02:00 Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com>: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Tom MacWright <t...@macwright.org> wrote: >> >> Okay, but most relations are invisible. >> > > Relations are visible* if the editor makes them visible.* > > The iD editor introduced an entirely synthetic primitive: the "area". > Thus, in iD, the "area" is visible. > The iD editor, or an editor like it, could introduce a "grouping", and > make it visible. > > Relations are not only possible to visualize, they're interesting, Click > on Main Street > and see the 12 bus lines that use Main street? Interesting. Click on a > line and learn > it forms the USA/Canadian Border, 8,891 km long, consisting of 5000 odd > line segments? Interesting > and instructive. > > A series of iD plugins for visualizing specific types of relations would > rock. And of course in iD style > they'd be called something different, like, say, "Turn Restrictions" or a > "Public Transit Route" or "Site" > or a "Level 8 Administrative Boundary between X and Y". The word relation > need > never come into it. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > By all-but-ignoring relation editing, Potlach and iD only make it easy to > ignore or even *damage* relations. It's all downside. > > That's not what you want for entry level editing. A good experience for a > starting user is they made a positive contribution, > they saw the results rendered, and they did not mess anything up. When > the editor makes messing up > an invisible single click (or inadvertent click) operation, it leads to > stress all around. > > Relations are invisible only in editors that* leave them in the shadows.* > An editor that ignores or tries to hide a thing is unlikely to be the best > way to edit (or preserve) the invisible thing. > It's a form of "fake simplicity": making a given edit seem to be simpler > than it really can be. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
