You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.
Reporter: stevage [Submitted to the original trac issue database at 4.22pm, Monday, 28th December 2009]
Administrative boundaries (that is, boundary=administrative) tend to (in my region, anyway) have been mass-imported once, and never really need to be edited again. However, they really clutter up editing (since, again in my region, seem to be part of a multipolygon relation), and risk being joined onto carelessly by ways that cross them.
Suggestion:
Hide them by default, or make them much less obtrusive. The big thick purple multipolygon line is particularly painful.
Make them optionally visible, per-user.
Consider what other kinds of boundaries/areas should be hideable.
This request is motivated by a discussion on the talk-au list. John Smith made a similar request for JOSM.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Author: Richard [Added to the original trac issue at 10.33pm, Sunday, 7th March 2010]
I think this is probably best left for Potlatch 2, which has user-selectable (and user-editable) stylesheets so you can control what gets rendered. I agree that the exasperating tendency of people to import any old random shit can rather mess up the map for those of us who go mapping, but jury-rigging Potlatch 1 to cope with it is probably a less productive use of time than finishing Potlatch 2.
Reporter: stevage
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 4.22pm, Monday, 28th December 2009]
Administrative boundaries (that is, boundary=administrative) tend to (in my region, anyway) have been mass-imported once, and never really need to be edited again. However, they really clutter up editing (since, again in my region, seem to be part of a multipolygon relation), and risk being joined onto carelessly by ways that cross them.
Suggestion:
This request is motivated by a discussion on the talk-au list. John Smith made a similar request for JOSM.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: