Template talk:Relation

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This template is beginning to take way too much space, can't we make a nicer solution to get all those links in a more compact way? --Eimai 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  • What's abouts using one letter per link, f c b m, for full - check - browse - manage. Same could be done for the smal version "Template:BrowseRelation" --Behrica 19:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
To keep it as user-friendly as possible (and I'm talking for non-mappers who are browsing the wiki, as well as mappers), I think it'd be good to cut it down so that it links to 'browse' view from the number. From there you can get to the XML (API) view in one click anyway - or developers could just copy and paste the number. The two external tools (check and manage) could be included if you specified them as an option (eg {{Relation|12345|check=yes|manage=yes}}). Frankie Roberto 22:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so I've hidden all the extra links, unless you specify tools=yes. This brings the template more in line with how the Node and Way templates work (which link to browse only by default). Frankie Roberto 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
And I've now reversed that behaviour so it hides everything when tools=no instead. Either that or change all pages using the template to show them with all tools so those pages don't become useless. --Eimai 11:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair point. Happy for the default to be changed so that existing pages stay consistent. Frankie Roberto 21:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Default value for tools parameter - revisited

It's been a long time, but I still think the default should be tools=no. Right now this template is inconsistent with Template:Node and Template:Way which by default only show the id with a link to osm.org. Many of the tools are somewhat redundant anyway - "view", "xml", "JOSM" and "Potlatch" are all available from the browse page - and most of the others specialise in route relations (i.e. only 10 % of relations). Is there a chance that we can switch the default? --Tordanik 10:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)