Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve searchability of optional fields #5763

Closed
2 tasks done
quincylvania opened this issue Jan 25, 2019 · 3 comments
Closed
2 tasks done

Improve searchability of optional fields #5763

quincylvania opened this issue Jan 25, 2019 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
field An issue with a field in the user interface
Milestone

Comments

@quincylvania
Copy link
Collaborator

quincylvania commented Jan 25, 2019

Fields do not always have the names users expect, see #5755 (comment). Now that there could be many fields in the "Add field" dropdown, we should make them easier to search:

  • Match the field's tag key
  • Add search terms array, like with presets
@quincylvania quincylvania added the field An issue with a field in the user interface label Jan 25, 2019
@eehpcm
Copy link

eehpcm commented Jan 25, 2019

Maybe you shouldn't restrict which fields can be added to your preconceived notions of what is applicable. As I just noted in #5755 you can't add opening hours to toilets with "Add field".

Even if you expand the list to everything that is documented as possibly applying to a particular type of object, a mapper may have reasons to use something. So maybe not everything is in the drop-down list but maybe everything should be searchable. Or maybe not. Adding a cuisine to toilets is just wrong. :) But many things can have opening hours, and that's probably not the only field with more general applicability..

@quincylvania
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Maybe you shouldn't restrict which fields can be added to your preconceived notions of what is applicable.

@eehpcm I've thought a lot about this, and I think the biggest consideration is making sure casual mappers feel that any field that they can add is appropriate for the preset. To this end, we actually removed a lot of universal fields in 2.13.0 and manually added them to the appropriate features (see #5719). You can still add any tags you want in the raw tags editor!

A field like opening_hours makes sense for lots of businesses and facilities, but there are many other objects in OSM that it doesn't apply to (walls, power lines, mountains, rivers, counties, etc). I do appreciate you finding instances like opening_hours+toilets where fields are missing, and I encourage you to open issues and/or pull requests as you find them!

@quincylvania quincylvania self-assigned this Aug 9, 2019
@quincylvania quincylvania added this to the 2.15.5 milestone Aug 9, 2019
@quincylvania
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I did this. You can now add terms to fields…

{
    "key": "level",
    "type": "combo",
    "label": "Level",
    "universal": true,
    "terms": [
        "building floor",
        "deck",
        "storey",
        "story"
    ]
}

…and iD will use them when filtering fields.

Screen Shot 2019-08-09 at 11 16 37 AM

For efficiency, only fields that could be searchable are translatable. Even so, this still adds lots of translatable strings to Transifex at once.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
field An issue with a field in the user interface
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants