[Talk-de] Potlatch and relation handling

[Richard Fairhurst]

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> So in the end I am happy that someone recently coded the 
> missing relation support for Potlatch2, but given your 
> statements from previous discussions (as well as you closing 
> relative tickets with "won't fix") wasn't really encouraging to 
> think that this has been done in the past few weeks.

What on earth are you on about?

Potlatch 2 has full support for nested and ordered relations. Potlatch 2 has
_always_ had full support for nested and ordered relations. That is what
Tirkon was disputing in his wiki posting to which
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2011-December/090998.html
referred; that is what you supported in the follow-up message,
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-de/2011-December/091009.html;
and that is what I was correcting.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether Potlatch 2 has an abstraction
model for one particular (broken) tagging paradigm, by which tags created in
simple mode are applied to a 'containing' multipolygon relation rather than
the way itself. That is the subject of your trac tickets. I have already
explained why, given the likelihood of a proper area datatype to replace
this nasty hack, I will not spend my own time coding that; but suggested:

"If you want it to be changed to additionally support tagging the relation,
submit a good patch. I will be happy to help with the coding and UI issues
for this patch."

and again:

"if someone else who does come from a land where people use bonkers
complicated multipolygons came up with a decent patch, I imagine we'd be
very happy to accept it."

But I realise that would require you to actually do some work rather than
just endlessly, parasitically criticising others' work on the mailing lists.

Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Potlatch-and-relation-handling-tp7089701p7089929.html
Sent from the Germany mailing list archive at Nabble.com.