<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/10/2020 08:57, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:611393DE-EE0B-4F0E-8486-89ED40E91E5C@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
sent from a phone
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On 5. Oct 2020, at 00:58, Michael Booth <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:boothym@gmail.com"><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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
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?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Telling potential new contributors that they need to use JOSM to
contribute to OSM will have two effects:</p>
<ol>
<li>It'll put lots of people off contributing to OSM at all.</li>
<li>It'll cause lots of errors in OSM where people don't
understand what they're doing do things by accident.</li>
</ol>
<p>All tools have their strengths and weaknesses and it makes sense
to use the right tool for the job in each case. JOSM is great for
some things - I regularly use 4 different OSM editors on a regular
basis and by some measure of "most edits" JOSM may well be "the
editor that I use most", but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who
isn't familiar with the basics in OSM at all yet. People need to
find out how "what they see in the real world" and "what they see
on a map" relate to "what data is actually in OSM" and JOSM really
isn't good at explaining, or in some cases even representing,
that.<br>
</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>