<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/05/2013 12:15, Nick Whitelegg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:OFBCEBD9B3.969060DE-ON80257B75.003DD1AA-80257B75.003DD1AA@solent.ac.uk"
type="cite"><font face="Default Sans
Serif,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"><br>
I don't regularly use iD myself (JOSM user), but, on behalf of
its developers: negative comments like this are unhelpful and
denigrate the vast amount of hard work that has gone into
producing the editor. If you don't like it, complain about it to
your friends in private, change the code, but do not slag it off
on a public mailing list!</font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You think the developers are above criticism? A public forum is
*exactly* where they should be aired. The creators came here &
said "look what we've made, isn't it fantastic" & some of us
have pointed out that, actually, no it isn't that good. For them to
say "OK, we've made a mistake, why don't you fix it?" is arrogant.
Developers should not be put on pedestals.<br>
<br>
As has been pointed out there's a few reasons why it not good enough
to be the default editor. Another being it's lack of relation
information which will lead to them being split/deleted. There needs
to be, at least, some kind of warning note that a selected way
contains a relation.<br>
The panning/background refresh speed has improved slightly in
Firefox, but not sure if that's Id's or FF's doing. <br>
<br>
I think it needs pointing out, yet again, that we are all
volunteers, all putting in time & effort for the good of the
project.<br>
<br>
Dave F. <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>