Is there a plan/roadmap for integrating P3 into the OSM website as P2 uses/used to be? It really would be nice to start P3 automatically in the right place when clicking on a GPX-track.
After having done a few edits with a test-account in OSM I wanted to log out again. But Potlatch3 never asks for a new account name and password, even if I clicked [Log out] or even [Reset].
Dear Richard, please put the current user name on the Options - Connection - Page (or somewhere else in the menu) and make Potlatch 3 really forget it after Log out. Thanks a lot!
@Pfad-Finder,
Difference between P2 and P3 is that P2 was running as a browser-integrated Adobe Flash application, while P3 is a standalone application running on the PC. This would imply to start P3 from within the OSM website, or at least warn the user to start P3 manually in case the OSM website cannot detect P3 being loaded already. For this reason I doubt if this scenario will be possible or very practical.
What can be done now is change the text under the rolldown arrow beside the ‘Edit’ button to:
Edit with iD (in-browser editor)
REMOVE Edit with Potlatch 2 …
Edit with Remote Control (JOSM, Merkaartor or Potlatch 3)
AND
Change the text of the error message “Editing failed - make sure JOSM or Merkaartor is loaded and the remote control option is enabled” to “*Editing failed - make sure JOSM or Merkaartor or Potlatch 3 is loaded and the remote control option is enabled
*”
If you then adapt your preferences on osm.org to edit using Pemote Control you will get a warning to remind you to load Potlatch 3 before you start your editing session. You will learn fast enough to load P3 first if you plan an editing session - easy to do if P3 is pinned to the Windows Taskbar.
Would this be an acceptable scenario? For me at least, it is.
How to reach the maintainers of the osm.org website to ask them to make the adaption?
Sounds good to me, too.
There’s already discussion on the OSM Website github about this, and one proposed change is not to mention specific editors for ‘remote control’, although a specific text has not yet been agreed.
+1 Would be fine for me.
Well, here we are:
- I always used potlatch2 for editing and had got very much used to it
- potlatch2 has now been disabled, though the underlying flash is still available - it is only “unsupported”
- the alternative potlatch3 is not available to me as a “true blue” linux user
I think my motivation for contributing will suffer seriously. Also, I feel almost like cheated because rare and much-needed funds from OSM were used to create this potlatch3 that is of no use to me. Had I known this beforehand I’d never have supported the assignment of OSM money.
Very disappointed,
You might want to check out JOSM. . .
For what it is worth, my very first edits were with Potlach1 and I disliked it so much that I went looking for alternatives and found JOSM. Many claim that JOSM has a steeper learning curve. Maybe that is true, but it didn’t seem all that hard to learn basic editing with it. And it is written in JAVA so it runs on Linux as well as MacOS and Windows.
Yes, JOSM seems the least unfortunate alternative. I’ll tackle it one day, if I can muster the required amount of motivation. Still, I feel I have been led by the nose by the suggestion that PL3 would be an alternative for PL2 - it isn’t, at least not for me; and yet I was misled into supporting its funding from OSM.
See https://github.com/systemed/potlatch3/issues/2 about running Potlatch 3 on Linux.
https://github.com/systemed/potlatch3/issues/5 is about running it on Wine, but it seems like a dead end for now.
Wine is not a solution anyway. It can never be more than a work-around, and never a strong one.
It’s always been the case that running it on Linux wouldn’t be a slam-dunk because AIR for Linux hasn’t been updated since 2011. For that reason, nowhere along the line has anyone promised that Linux would definitely happen. I believe that mmd’s findings in https://github.com/systemed/potlatch3/issues/2 show that it will be possible without Wine, most realistically with some container-like solution, but it needs someone who’s pretty skilled in Linux administration to establish that.
That someone certainly isn’t me, but I’m willing to give as much assistance as I can, compile special versions of P3, and so on. For what it’s worth, the two blockers are absolutely on the Adobe side and not on the P3 side: the first is that it’s just plain hard to install on modern systems, the second is that it turns out AIR doesn’t support TLS 1.1/1.2 and therefore has difficulty connecting to many modern https servers. Neither of those are things I can fix in the P3 codebase though I wish I could!
Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that I’m pretty sure that the OSMF didn’t just have just you personally in mind when they made that allocation…
With regard to the options for P3 on Linux, https://github.com/systemed/potlatch3/issues/2 does indeed look like a major challenge, given that it seems to rely on a very old runtime for Linux that doesn’t work with sites that don’t support antique TLS versions - even once you get past any 32-bit/64-bit issues. However:
I’m guessing that’s just your political opinion? If so, fine - you’re entitled to your own beliefs (but not to your own facts, of course).
Using Wine actually avoids some of the issues in https://github.com/systemed/potlatch3/issues/2 because it’s using a newer runtime, and because Wine handles the 32/64 bit issues (via WinSxS I guess). It’s certainly not perfect, but it’s good enough to use as a “normal” editor.
No, I do not consider myself so much noteworthy 
Still, I had been led to believe that his here PL3 would be a full complete alternative to PL2 - it is not. And I did support the funding, and I now regret having done so, on the grounds of (to say the least) incomplete information.
What has politics to do here? Will you discuss Brexit next?
But as an IT professional, I firmly hold the opinion that an emulator - which Wine essentially is - can never be a realistic alternative for a native application, which PL2 was.
You may have your own notions of “good enough” and “normal” - but may I be allowed to stay with mine? There seems to be a discrepancy.
It’s still better to have Potlatch 3 than no such software at all. For those working on Windows-systems (like me) it is a good alternative to e. g. JOSM and worth every Cent of the funding. Of course I hope PL3 will still see some improvements and hopefully for Linux systems too.
But don’t take PL3 hostage in the holy war of Linux vs. Windows.
Today I wanted to make my last edit with Potlatch 2 but my browser already responds:
I am really happy to have the You can still use Potlatch possibility!
That war has long ceased to be “holy” Even 15 years ago, at the place I then worked, it was rather a bit of folklore, to spark good-humoured joking between teams who were doomed to collaborate. Today there remains scarcely any trace of it, at least where I work.
And I am unhappy because - even if I receive the same message - I cannot. And even more unhappy because I was led to believe that I would.
Too bad, I see your situation. Why isn’t it possible to put Potlatch on the same browser-based core like ID, just with the features and behaviour of Potlatch?
Because Potlatch is written in ActionScript and uses the Flash drawing APIs. These are unfortunately very different from JavaScript and the canvas/SVG drawing APIs, which are what browsers give you. Porting Potlatch to JavaScript+SVG would probably be about two months’ full-time work even for someone who already knows the Potlatch internals well (which is three or four people in the entire world 
).
Native app offers no tangible benefits vs. a wine based solution. It is too complex to set up for the majority of users, and only comes with inferior performance and stability. My recommendation is to use wine instead.
Details: