Attendees
| IRC nick
|
Real name
|
| apmon |
Kai Krueger
|
| lonvia |
Sarah Hoffmann
|
| shaunmcdonald |
Shaun McDonald
|
| TomH |
Tom Hughes
|
| zere |
Matt Amos
|
Summary
- shaunmcdonald reports that the CI server is sort of running, however the host has some hardware issues, which are being worked on.
- MapUI issue
- [1]
- basically: 1) whether it's ok to remove the ability to easily get a long link to a page with a non-centered marker, and 2) whether it's ok for a page with a marker to not be able to scroll.
- The consensus was 1) it's ok, and 2) it's not ok.
IRC Log
17:02:14 <zere> minutes of (some of) the last few meetings: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/EWG_2013-07-08 http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/EWG_2013-07-15 and http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/EWG_2013-07-22
17:02:35 <zere> i had an action from the previous meeting to write them all up, so apologies - i only managed 3/4.
17:02:48 <zere> #action zere write up the remaining minutes.
17:03:56 <zere> we talked last time about ci.osm.org, and i think Firefishy and shaunmcdonald have been trying to get that operational again.
17:08:04 <zere> hmmm... seems like a quiet day.
17:08:15 <TomH> I'd like to get people's thoughts on the mapui issue I just raised, so we can try and get that merged
17:08:28 <zere> #topic mapui issue
17:09:03 <zere> TomH: link?
17:09:17 <apmon> zere: Yes, ci.osm.org is up and running again
17:10:18 <shaunmcdonald> ci is sort of running, however the host has some hardware issues. There is a new server ready to transfer it to, however there hasn't been the time to do it yet. taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk has been transferred. I can give access if someone wants to help with the setup of ci.
17:11:21 <TomH> zere: last few comments on https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/351
17:13:34 <zere> specifically: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/351#issuecomment-22117601 , right?
17:14:48 <zere> so basically: 1) whether it's ok to remove the ability to easily get a long link to a page with a non-centered marker, and 2) whether it's ok for a page with a marker to not be able to scroll?
17:14:57 <TomH> yep
17:15:05 <zere> in which case, i don't see a problem with (1), but (2) is a bug (imho).
17:16:16 <zere> apmon, shaunmcdonald: thoughts?
17:16:33 <lonvia> You can move the map by moving the marker, but that is really far off what you'd expect. The previous behaviour was more intuitive.
17:16:40 <TomH> tend to agree, though (1) will doubtless generate complaints
17:17:21 <shaunmcdonald> A page with a marker needs to be able to pan and zoom.
17:18:36 <zere> no doubt any change would generate complaints. but jfire's reasoning about UI difficulties creating a centered marker link are plausible. probably just trading off complaints of one sort for the other.
17:18:54 <shaunmcdonald> I've rarely had a case of needing the ability to have a map marker with a different map position. It could be that once some more thought has been put into it, we make a later improvement so that it can work.
17:19:36 <zere> indeed. since we (iirc) don't support multiple markers, then i've never needed to generate one other than at the center of the map.
17:21:31 <lonvia> The centering was mostly asked for sl you can hack the marker into the url. I doubt it is still needed with an explicit marker function.
17:21:49 <lonvia> An in any case the short link still centers.
17:22:06 <shaunmcdonald> Maybe allowing it in code but not UI is a good compromise?
17:22:50 <shaunmcdonald> I'm about to head out, is there anything else I'm needed for?
17:23:08 <zere> shaunmcdonald: thanks for being here :-)
17:23:30 <zere> and yes, i think jfire is saying it would be allowed in the URL, but not generated by the "link" UI
17:23:43 <shaunmcdonald> unfortunately I've got something else on each Monday evening, that half clashes.
17:23:46 <zere> so having it non-centered would still be possible if you were happy to hand-edit the URL
17:24:05 <TomH> oh that still works yes
17:26:59 <zere> ok. so it's seems the general opinion is that (1) is OK, but (2) is not.
17:27:30 <zere> TomH: are you happy with the PR except for this issue?
17:27:52 <TomH> I think so, yes
17:31:50 <zere> awesome.
17:31:57 <zere> #topic AoB
17:32:05 <zere> was there anything else anyone wanted to discuss?
17:56:19 <zere> i guess not.
17:56:34 <zere> thank you all for coming, & see you next week.