[Tagging] Tagging Cycle Route Relations vs. Ways

Seth Deegan jayandseth at gmail.com
Tue Nov 17 15:43:21 UTC 2020

> it does an OK job of this:  click the History button to get a
> recent-around-here list of 20 edits (click the Load More button for 20
> more…and again and again if you like).

Yes, the History button does do a good job. But I'm talking about this:

Clicking on one specific changeset will “drill down” to the specific data
> elements changed in that changeset (to the degree they can be displayed in
> a narrow column on a web page, though there are numbered “pages” you can
> scroll through for copious amounts of data).  These are grouped by data
> type (nodes, ways and relations), which in turn can have their “history”
> displayed, by “version number.”  It’s basic, workaday metadata, but it’s
> quite useful and user-friendly, requiring no more complicated skill than to
> click-navigate on a web page.

In my opinion, the current changeset viewer UI is *useless*. Giving me a
list of elements that I can't even see what tags and geometries are changed
(when clicking on each element) is of no use to me. You can't even hover
over one of the elements in the list and see it's geometry outline in the
map viewbox (would).

If the interface displayed the kind of data like
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/ did (Yves, you're right this is
the best one), or at least OSMcha, then it would be of use.


> A
> contributor can obtain data from many different sources within each
> changeset. Pushing the tag to the changeset meta data invalidates it's
> limited usefulness when added to individual objects.


I've found published data (from the authority
> authorised to amend the route) are often too inaccurate, out of date or
> lacking in detail to warrant transferring to OSM.

I find the opposite and I mostly map cycle routes that are local and I have
personally traveled on (I live in the Chicago metropolitan area). There are
just too many sources for trail names and data from forest preserve
districts/counties, cities, regional routes, etc. that I make routes from.
I can't just remember all of the trail names I come across (I don't survey).


What I still don't understand is why you all are *discouraging* the use of
source=* tag (or maybe you're not?). Because it seems that it can still be
of use to some people. Why not let users know on the Wiki page that they *can
*use the tag if they might find a *specific* source helpful to other users,
but that they shouldn't tag imagery or other general sources per-element
and instead tag it on the changeset? Thank you for agreeing ael.

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:35 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>

> sent from a phone
> > On 17. Nov 2020, at 06:23, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> >
> > to the degree they can be displayed in a narrow column on a web page
> yes, this is basically broken since the redesign (maybe 2012?), the
> history view used to provide a clearer overview on the full width, and this
> is something that could come back again? Or maybe invert the screen real
> estate division between map and history table.
> Josm has a decent history view integrated (ctrl+h) which let’s you compare
> between versions, links to changesets and shows for example position
> changes of nodes.
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201117/e8caf08e/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list