2015-07-11 These days, I'm watching quite a lot ``State of the Map'' (the OSM conference) recordings from previous years. I enjoy their shortness. Most are only about 20 minutes long. This length is great. I seldom miss the not possible depth but I enjoy the brev- ity. How different are the 60 to 90 minutes talks on programming topics, I usually watch! This experience makes me rethink my preference on the length of my own talks. I am used to the 90- minutes time frame and like it to be able to dive into a topic. The curiosity is, that I have not had the painful desire to dive deeper when the depth was cut off in the 20-minutes talks at SotM. Is it only that I'm not yet deep enough in the OSM topic? Is it the difference between programming and mapping (i.e. using tools)? I can't answer it. I am just impressed and wish for more of these shorter talks at conferences in the programming communi- ty. Up to now, I did all my mapping work with the iD editor. (This choice was technology-driven, as I dislike Java more than Web stuff.) Now, as I start to become interested in relations and other more advanced stuff, I begin to feel the limits of iD. Un- til now, iD provided all I needed; now my demand increases. (Some of the OSM guys had foreseen this tendency, already months ago.) Currently, this experience is too new to me to have built up my opinion on it. Do I really want to dive that deep into OSM? Do I want to become an expert or is it enough to be able to map on my current level? In how far does my mapping activity conflict with my programming activities? For now, I would be happy if I could deactivate the context wheel menu in iD and remove everything from the left pane except the all-tags view and the all-relations view (plus maybe the main feature selection). All the rest is mainly disturbing and hardly helpful in my work. In exchange, it would be great to be able to apply tags like building=house or addr:street=Seeweg to a set of selected objects. http://marmaro.de/lue/ markus schnalke