in https://forum.opennauticalchart.org/viewtopic.php?id=6 Dirk started a thread regarding the online map because there are (at least) three code bases, we could build on (by Dirk, Olaf and me).
In https://forum.opennauticalchart.org/vie … pid=48#p48, Olaf wrote that "this is no new project". That's of course right, but from my understanding it was previously mainly run by Olaf.
I left open sea map because I was not happy with Markus' role. So far, Olaf gave me no impression that at ONC Markus' role would just get a new name, but I am still a bit worried and I do not want to intrude or hijack someone's project.
Maybe we should discuss this before everything is settled and fixed.
@Olaf: How do you see this? Do you feel bum-rushed and would prefer if we start a truly new project?
@all: From the OSeaMap mailing list, I have the impression that many of you left OpenSeaMap for similar reasons. As alternative to ONC, I would also be fine with starting entirely new (e.g. as LibreSeaMap). What's your opinion on this?
I believe that Olaf was only referring to his Online Map re-write, rather than the entire ONC project. Unlike OSeaM, all developers registered on the ONC Github are co-owners and can therefore create new projects, submit pull requests and open issues on all projects or become a team member of a project.
We might start stating what each individual expects and wants to achieve.
Here comes my initial try https://wiki.opennauticalchart.org/inde … rk--#Goals
I think you got me somehow wrong. This is a Opensource project and should act under the terms of a free public license. The only issue I have is (only referring to the online map at the moment), that Some people (not only me) started this project 2 years ago and have already done some work on it.
What I have meant with the comment you are referring to is, that I felt some kind overrun in a MB way too. It took no week after registering to the project until Dirk opens a thread saying we need a new online map. After asking him why, it came out, that he have not looked at the existing map in detail at all.
I am open to every new idea and task, but just coming in and say here are my solutions: eat or die, is also no open way. My solution was not mentioned at all in the original request. I spent a lot of time into the existing solution over 2 years now and are not willing to throw it away in one week. OL3 support is not the Holy Grail
So please let's wait and discuss the possible solutions. At the moment the decision mailing list or forum is still pending. Do not try to force something, that is not discussed in public. Not all contributors are subscribed to the forum.
If I port the existing map to OL3 it is no decision to use this map later on. It is just for me. I am using online map viewers in other projects also, hence "only for me" it is no waste of time. You are developing your map too.
In an ideal way we find a solution to merge the advantages of both maps into one final solution.
Last edited by Olaf_H (2015-12-20 19:32:35)
I don't want to force my map implementation on the official project page at all and also would not want you to abandon your work. I only digged out my map implementation to show you what I could offer and just gained some motivation to update it to a recent OL3 version (unfortunately, many useful parts of OL3 are not stable, yet). Then adding new features was just behind the fence. :)
I will continue the work on my map anyway and will officially put it online somewhere as soon as it leaves the prototype state. So even if the map should not end up here, your feedback is highly welcome. I also do not find the map implementation a super large contribution to the project because in principle it just provides a viewer for the "real" contributions (rendered tiles, offline maps, ...). So I really don't care too much whether the project builds on your code base or mine.
I just would not want to port your implementation to OL3 because that's not much fun for me (in contrast to implementing new features) and there was not much progress in your map during the last months (in mine neither). But since you started porting the map yourself, this is a perfectly fine solution to me. If you can find some solutions for sub-problems in my code, this would be great. My code is not yet labelled as such, but I will officially put it under the GPL in the next few days (maybe only after Christmas), so please take whatever you find useful.
Since both implementations will be freely available, the ONC project can always choose freely which one should be officially on display.
PS: I did not want to panic, but a wise man once said "A MB-burnt child dreads the fire."
First, I really appreciate having a discussion and would like to quote Malcolm:
"We [...] should not be afraid to 'wash our dirty linen in public’."
http://sourceforge.net/p/openseamap/mai … /34239881/
@Olaf: Please take my writings as suggestions. I consider a project like this as a 'do-ocracy'.