Talk:Develop/Archive 1

Rename to 'Developing'

Please rename this page to 'Developing' to keep in with the rest of site (editing, browsing etc.). Danm

Did you know you can link to this page syntax like [[Develop]]ing. Likewise [[Develop]]ers and [[Develop]]ment. Quite a handy trick for dropping links mid sentence. -- Harry Wood 16:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting Tiles

Please document how to download pre-rendered tiles. A lot of programs can use these.

It's been a while since I looked at OSM, and I'm really impressed with the work you guys have done! The Potlatch online map editor, in particular, is amazing. We'd love to start using OSM over at Wikitravel (which also has CC by-sa license), but for this we'd really need the ability to download pre-rendered tiles (and ideally add in a custom WT layer on top, but that's another kettle of fish). Could you document the method for transforming map coordinates into tiles? Jpatokal 15:24, 23 October 2007 (BST)

Never mind, it looks like doing SVG exports with Osmarender will be a better solution. Jpatokal 04:47, 24 October 2007 (BST)

Missing link - slippy map trac

The link to the slippy map trac page is not correct. There is no slippy map trac component. User:Rendle 07:11, 11 June 2009

Good point. I removed the link. 'slippy map' is a kind of non-component, because really the view tab is all part of The Rails Port but with an invocation of OpenLayers javascript (a whole separate open source project) for the map. -- Harry Wood 16:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

List of all libraries

Hi, I think we lack a general page where we list all dev libraries, right? --!i! 16:51, 8 August 2010 (BST) And where do we list all scripts e.g. WhereAmI? --!i! 13:10, 13 August 2010 (BST)

Recent redesign

The recent changes were a result of discussion with #osm-ewg, in which we agreed that the existing page was out of date & needed to be simplified into serving a single use case - this one, for people who want to contribute development time and energy to OSM code.Tmcw 13:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We agreed it is out of date but it is not clear to me that it should only serve a single use case. Also in the previous version there were some links that are now gone but are valid development-related links. Perhaps the "Development" link from the main wiki page should lead to some intermediate page that would expose more use cases (data consumers vs API users like we discussed at EWG meeting) and one of them would go to this page. Paweł Paprota 13:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have prepared a draft for a landing page for developers: User:Ppawel/Developers. This could be linked from the main page and people could follow links here. Paweł Paprota 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why iD is to prominent in the new version. It's only one of many approaches of an JavaScript based editor. --Andi 18:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I think the answer to that is that EWG are throwing their weight behind the iD project, and so are the MapBox guys (working full time on this with funding from the knight grant) so if it looks like "only one of many approaches" at the moment, you can be assured it's won't stay that way. Over the next few months it's likely to develop into a compelling full-featured editor on a par with Potlatch. I guess the point of giving it prominence here is to ensure new developers can see where all the action is at -- Harry Wood 11:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

On which page should we point people who are interested in the osm architecture? I think there should be a diagram, not only a textual description. --Andi 18:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a page called Component overview with an architectural diagram, and several paragraphs describing each of the "core components". This redesigned Develop page seem quite similar to that in structure now, although the core components are not necessarily projects where most development activity is happening/needed. -- Harry Wood 11:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Rename according to purpose? + Developers page

After tmcw's changes this page is now strictly about developing the OSM core "platform". A general page for developers is Developers. I think this page should be renamed to reflect these changes. Something like Develop_OSM maybe or Developing_OSM? And then setting up a redirect from Develop to Developers. Paweł Paprota 11:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I see you created a new page "Developers" which is now linked from the Main Page instead of this page. This duplication/ reshuffling is problematic. Any improvements happening here are now suddenly immaterial. Nobody clicks through to this page any more. Also remember that this page has been translated into 11 different languages. Reshuffling and redesigning pages like this has a backscatter effect of confusion and work for all the translators, so we should try to decide on a structure we all agree on as soon as possible to minimise this.

I quite like the Developers page design though.... but then this "portal" approach (some important links grouped into boxes, not much wordy description) ...is kind of what this page was at the beginning of the week! I can see there's a more gentle transition to a middle-ground we should be aiming for here.

-- Harry Wood 11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your point about translations is very important... I think we should take what is on the Developers page and have it as another revision to the Develop page. Then take what tmcw wrote and make a new landing page for OSM.org/platform development from it (as there is no such page right now - or maybe Component Overview is such a page?). What do you think? Paweł Paprota 11:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I merged most of the Developers page to this page after discussing with Harry on IRC. It was clear that we need to urgently avoid having two pages and also we really should have a more natural/incremental update to Develop page rather than repurposing it. Paweł Paprota 12:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Split development of OSM and development with OSM

According to my proposal for a new navigation concept, I would like to split this site into the two use cases development of the OSM software and development based on OSM, since these are quite different tasks. I did a try on Using_Openstreetmap#Software_development for the second use case, but I'm not a technician and to me it's not clear what content is needed for what use case. So I would like to know if you agree on splitting the navigation this way and if somebody could write a navigation section on how to develop with OSM. --Cantho (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Develop page is well designed and should stay as it is. There's a lot of synergies here, just consider how many of the links on this page are useful for both. Your idea of grouping "development with OSM" together with casual users who just want a map doesn't really fit my mental model of the wiki's target audiences. --Tordanik 17:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Security bug: Password sent in clear text

How to reproduce:

1. Log in
2. Go to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ChangeEmail
3. Fill the form
4. Press "Change email"
5. PROBLEM: Password is sent in plain text over unencrypted HTTP connection

Nicolas Raoul (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, the form's action is "/wiki/Special:ChangeEmail", so, it just uses the protocol and host which you use currently. This is quite visible to the user that the connection is not HTTPS in your case. Open via HTTPS instead ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ChangeEmail ) and you should be fine. Yes, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup pages are automatically redirected to HTTPS, so this behaviour is a bit inconsistent. I could not find older existing bugs, you might want to report this as a bug for mediawiki. Check if this also happens at e.g. Wikipedia or in the MediaWiki wiki. If you report a bug, please provide crosslinks here and over there. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolved: redirects to https nowadays Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)