<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left">24 May 2019, 14:48 by osm@imagico.de:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">OSMF endorses <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">this as the default way of editing OSM online via the website giving it <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">an unfair advantage over any competing system of presets and <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">validation.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">Is there some editor capable of working in-browser that can be considered as better than iD<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">that was refused without a good reason? There is Potlatch 2, but relying on Flash<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">immediately makes it worse (even assuming that interface and design is better than in iD).<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Or is there some explicit or implicit announcement that iD will be kept as default even in case<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">of something better (like forked iD with some changes to presets and validation rules)?<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">If not, I would not describe it as unfair.<br></div> </body>
</html>