Talk:Component overview (2006)

This is just a quick sketch, feel free to edit.

To change the diagram:

• Modify the DOT code at Systems/Sourcecode and upload your changes. The language should be fairly self-explanatory!
• Render it with dot -Tpng sourcecode.txt > osm_systems.png and upload the modified image
• Software used is graphviz, available for all good operating systems from a website near you

Ojw 19:55, 1 Sep 2006 (BST)

Why bother

I understand the good intention, but this diagram is only confusing. Does that mean I should "shut up and fix it"? Perhaps, but I will do neither. My personal opinion about diagrams like this is that they represent a view of technology as a whole system that can be understood and planned. This view of technology is commonplace in the telecom world. In politics is related to the planned economy of the Soviet Union. My view is the opposite: that of free market economy and technology based on individual creativity in small parts. For an individual who wants to create a new use for OSM data, looking at a diagram like this can lead to the frustration that her little piece doesn't seem to fit in the large puzzle. In the worst case, other users can point to the diagram, the grand plan, and point out to the creative user that her piece doesn't fit. This is what stopped the entrepreneurial Soviet citizens, and what stops creative people from being productive in the telecom industry. Just as an example, try to link "printed maps" (lower left) to "PDF Atlas" (lower right) in this diagram. That is a difficult task and such a difficulty indicates that something is wrong. So perhaps something is wrong with the PDF Atlas? No, it's the diagram that's wrong, and not the way that it is currently drawn, but the very idea to draw this diagram is problematic. --LA2 20:33, 1 Sep 2006 (BST)

Alternate philosophy: we make maps.

• Sometimes those maps help people discover new places to visit in their town, or to let them find a route from bergen to oslo.
• Other times, those maps help them to discover new pieces of software, or to let them find a route from the OSM data sources to getting a map printed.

Ojw 21:25, 1 Sep 2006 (BST)

New version

Seems to be missing that tracklogs can be used directly in JOSM, without going through the OSM website. Since we use this feature a lot (e.g. at mapping weekends to show the first day's activity) it would be useful to show. Ojw 12:10, 2 Sep 2006 (BST)

Added offline path for editing directly using GPX filesNickH 14:14, 2 Sep 2006 (BST)

Deletion of this very out of date page

The information on this page is, like, well out of date, innit? I'm not proposing to delete the images, so if someone wants to create a History of OSM page, they'll still be there. Otherwise this page doesn't describe anything that's been current about OSM for over five years. Any objections to deleting it? Jonathan Bennett 15:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to transform this into a historic page instead of deletion. Marking it clearly as historical and referencing it from History of OSM. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 09:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

For the purposes of search clarity, I think we should move pages like this to have the year in the title. Also this page title is a bit "over-broad". "Systems" could mean all sorts of things. We have a similar topic covered at Component overview. So my proposal would be....

Rename this page from "Systems" to "Old 2006 component overview"

-- Harry Wood (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)