[OSM-dev] Improving History and Monitoring
ian.dees at gmail.com
Sat May 7 16:26:31 BST 2011
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
> On 07/05/11 15:24, Mikel Maron wrote:
> I'm not talking about filtering them, I understand the issue. Rather,
>> simply visually distinguishing them. We had that before the last update.
> Is it actually useful though? What does it tell you? What do you
> differently when you know it is "big" for whatever definition of big we
> happen to pick?
Why is filtering off the table? Just don't output the items that have "big"
marked. Sure we still have to use CPU time to determine the size of the
bbox, but we're already doing that. Equal CPU time for a possible
improvement to user experience seems fine to me.
We could even do it client-side: add a "big-changeset" class to the <tr> for
the changeset list and then a checkbox somewhere that hides those <tr>'s
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dev