<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>5 paź 2020, 12:19 od ajt1047@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div class="">On 05/10/2020 08:57, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="" class="">sent from a phone
<br></pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="" class="">On 5. Oct 2020, at 00:58, Michael Booth <a href="mailto:boothym@gmail.com" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><boothym@gmail.com></a> wrote:
Not sure I'd recommend JOSM for a 100% OSM newbie unless there was a specific reason or feature required when editing.
<br></pre></blockquote><pre wrap="" class="">I would, because they will have to learn from scratch anyway, so why not starting with the most popular (by numbers of edits), most powerful, most versatile, closest to the community consensus and longest standing (i.e. most reliable that it will remain) editor?<br></pre></blockquote><p>Telling potential new contributors that they need to use JOSM to
contribute to OSM will have two effects<br></p></blockquote><div>Telling them that they must use JOSM<br></div><div>and that they can use JOSM and<br></div><div>that in some cases JOSM is the best are different things.</div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><p>All tools have their strengths and weaknesses and it makes sense
to use the right tool for the job in each case. <br></p></blockquote><div>+1</div> </body>
</html>