Could we move all the programming language du jour fanboying, apps that have nothing to do OSM and other unrelated to the topic discussions somewhere else please?
And yes it underlines my point that regardless of how exotic the feature is, you are always going to find somebody that finds it critical to success (this one of the reasons why JOSM has three variants of everything), but it isn't a good measure of what the OSMF should spend its money on, weere applying an 80/20 rule is likely to be far more appropriate. At this time nobody is proposing anything more than giving P2 a bit more life for a small sum of money, if Richard has a plan for longer term maintenance and development then that should be considered when proposed. Definitely nobody is going to embark on the multi-million undertaking that writing and bringing to production a new editor is, just on the base that it would be cool to write one in <insert your favourite programming language here>. Simon Am 04.08.2020 um 16:26 schrieb Matthew Woehlke: > On 04/08/2020 08.10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> On 4. Aug 2020, at 13:58, Matthew Woehlke wrote: >>> but I would practically *kill* for JOSM to have FreeCAD's suite of >>> sketch constraints ;-). >> >> you’re aware that there are sketch constraints for configurable >> angles (90, 60, 45 etc) and projection snaps? Hit 2 times „a“ (angle >> display becomes green) > Yes. They're better than nothing, but nowhere near what I'm talking > about. As an example, consider the attached simple FreeCAD sketch > which is roughly representative of some buildings I've mapped > recently. The dome in front is centered (segments on either side > constrained to be equal). The "wings" in back are symmetrical. > > It's *possible* to do this sort of thing in JOSM with a lot of care > and by building part of the geometry, then constructing a bunch of > "scratch" geometry in order to construct a symmetry line, then doing a > copy, paste in place, mirror, reverse, stitch the parts together... > but God help you if you make a mistake and have to start over. > > In FreeCAD, you just slap on some equality constraints, angle > constraints, parallel constraints, etc. and then you can *move* any of > the nodes and everything else will update to preserve the applied > constraints. (The one things it's missing that would be helpful is a > *colinear* constraint; you have to simulate that with parallel and > coincident constraints using "construction" lines; those are the blue > ones. A colinear constraint could eliminate the need for those > construction lines.) This is the major difference, though. In JOSM, > constraints only apply when you initially draw something, so if you > get it wrong, you have to start over. In FreeCAD, they're a dynamic > system; if you get it wrong, just nudge it and the whole thing updates > *while preserving your constraints*. > > Oh, and *arcs*. The ability to define a segment that should be a > perfect arc, and optionally make it tangent or perpendicular to its > neighbors, would be a major boon. Again, I can fake it with a bunch of > scratch construction, but if it's wrong, I have to start over and hope > my next guess is better. In FreeCAD, just drag the end points until it > looks right. > > Then there are distance constraints, which would be incredibly useful > if you're mapping something with known dimensions. > > Seriously, give FreeCAD a spin. It's pretty awesome for this sort of > relatively simple 2D stuff. Also look at some of the buildings I've > done recently; the symmetrical ones don't just *look* symmetrical, > they *are* symmetrical (within the limits of JOSM's abilities). I've > also done a lot of stuff like roads that are perfectly centered in > between parking spaces, groups of aligned buildings that are > *actually* aligned, and whatnot. It's do-able, but it would be *soooo* > much easier with FreeCAD-style constraints. > > Obviously, this would all almost surely be a temporary mode (maybe it > persists as long as JOSM is open, but isn't uploaded), but since you > usually draw once, that would be fine. (Bonus points if JOSM could > automatically recreate constraints for ways that don't have any. It > shouldn't be hard to guess equality, perpendicular and colinear > constraints, at least.) > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
