[OSM-talk] Serious consideration of "Newbie Editor"
rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Fri Feb 26 06:46:19 GMT 2010
Roy Wallace wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
>>I would suggest that Potlatch is left alone for its devotees.
>>I'd start with the following in the design brief for the "Newbie Editor"
>>Can add nodes, label them with default tags only (other than name).
>>Can add ways, again default tag list only, other than name.
>>Very limited deletion ability (no clear idea yet on how to define this).
>I suspect starting at even this level of complexity would cause
>feature creep towards Potlatch, anyway...In particular, being able to
>add/edit ways requires handling many complex concepts (as others have
>brought up), like joining ways, way direction, overlapping ways, etc.
>How about an even bigger step back? If starting a new editor from
>scratch is to be worthwhile, surely it should be a LOT more basic than
>all other existing editors. i.e. how about only these features:
>1) Add POI
> a) where it is
> b) what it is (choose from a single list of options)
> c) the name
>2) Edit Name
> e.g. add or fix the name of an existing road - this should help a
>lot with noname roads
>Secondly: can we please decide on the scope of before we talk about
My personal preference would be to provide a little more capability, such
as adding a simple two-way highway, with only the minimum in selected
presets, except for the name, and moving nodes to correct a highway within
limits, but nothing more than that. But, as long as the architecture of
the editor and the UI are designed so that limited additional capability
can be added if/when it is deemed desirable, I have no problem with
keeping to the extreme minimum, initially. Maybe simple way editing could
be part of the "turbo" (please not "complex") editor mode. One thing I do
think should be included in the simplist editor would be a way to tag any
object with a FIX ME plus a comment. So that the user can as least flag a
discovered error, even if it can't be fixed with the user's current
editor/expertise. That would relieve a little frustration for someone who
might feel that the simple editor was too restrictive and that the error
they found will be lost once more.
And yes, there should be a prominent link to a page that briefly describes
the other, more powerful editors a short list of pros and cons, and links
I think something of this nature, maybe less, probably not more, would
grab the user with "Yes, I can make a difference!" followed by "Now I want
to make a bigger difference, and I've got some idea about where to go
next." Maybe I'm wrong. Only time and the hard work of those with the
expertise to do it will tell.
More information about the talk