Enhancements for "Tag multiple objects" feature in UtilsPlugin2

[aat765]

First off, thank you for developing and maintaining the UtilsPlugin2. It's a very helpful tool!

I'm writing to suggest some enhancements for the "Tag multiple objects (alpha)" feature, which would greatly improve its usability and efficiency for editing tags of multiple objects in the table view.

Specifically, I propose the following additions:

1. Clone tag values: The ability to quickly clone the value of one tag to another for multiple selected objects would be extremely beneficial. For example, copying values from a "name" tag to a "name:en" tag for several hotels.

2. Search and replace with Regex support: Implementing search and replace functionality within the tag editor table, with support for regular expressions (Regex), would be incredibly powerful for bulk editing and fixing common tagging problems. This would allow for quick operations like removing prefixes from multiple tags.

3. Integrated object history: While JOSM has a history feature, accessing it requires deselecting the current objects. Integrating a history view directly within the tag editor table would streamline the process of reviewing past edits without losing the current selection.

4. Copy and Paste Tag Values: Enable copying and pasting of tag values, both for individual cells and for selections of multiple cells. This would allow for quick duplication of tag values across multiple objects or even between different tags. This would be especially helpful for tasks such as copying names, addresses, or other common attributes.

These enhancements would significantly improve the workflow for editing multiple objects and make the UtilsPlugin2 even more valuable. Thank you for considering these suggestions.

[GerdP]

I wondered why we have the "Tag multiple objects" dialog because I found no use case. I think it would help to understand if you could describe what you do with the dialog and why it is easier to use this dialog compared to the standard dialog for tags.

[aat765]

I understand your point about wanting to see clear use cases for the "Tag multiple objects" dialog. I admit, I didn't fully appreciate its value until recently. Lately, I've been tackling a challenge with fixing name tags for a large number of features in my region. Many of them had issues like:

• Descriptive names (e.g., "..._Hotel", "..._Shop", "..._Gas Station") which are discouraged by best practices as the feature type is already captured by the appropriate tags.
• Spelling or grammatical errors and other inconsistencies.
• Discrepancies between the "name" tag and the localized "name:xx" tag.

For example, I recently corrected the name tag for 50 shops that were prefixed with "..._Hotel". Using the "Tag multiple objects" dialog, I was able to remove the prefix from all 50 hotels in under a minute. Doing this individually would have taken at least 10-15 minutes.

While the standard tagging dialog works for individual objects, it's not efficient for making the same change across many objects, especially when dealing with the kinds of bulk edits I described. This tool has been a lifesaver in fixing these errors efficiently and has saved me a significant amount of time. I wish I had discovered it sooner!

Beyond bulk editing, the table view is also useful for exploring tags and names in a selected area or after performing a search/filter. This resembles the data browsing capabilities found in GIS software like QGIS, Global Mapper, and ArcGIS Pro. Users familiar with those programs would likely find this functionality beneficial in JOSM.

[stoecker]

It seems you highly underestimate what the normal tagging dialog can do. It can properly handle many situations even with keeping different values when changing the key.

[GerdP]

Just as a side note: I once had to change the tags many hundreds of guideposts. I found the combination of the level0 plugin and my favorite text editor as best solution. Workflow was something like this:

• Select all objects that need a change
• Add a temporary tag to all (so that JOSM sees them as modified)
• load the selection in the level0 plugin
• copy+paste the text file and use the text editor to actually do the changes which involved macros and other steps
• copy+paste into the level0 plugin window and save
• remove the temporary tag

[taylor.smock]

I've used the validator to do something similar in the past.

With that said, I'd be careful about bulk editing, since some places actually have the descriptive name (e.g. Foo's Gas Station or Bar's Hotel or Baz's Shop).

[aat765]

Thank you all for your input and suggestions!

I appreciate the reminder about the capabilities of the standard tagging dialog, @stoecker. While it can handle many situations, I still find the table view in the "Tag multiple objects" dialog significantly more efficient for browsing, comparing, and editing tags across a larger selection of objects.

@GerdP, that's a great tip using level0 and a text editor. It reminds me of a similar method described by @stoecker in this ticket [link to https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/8437#comment:3]. While powerful, I agree that these approaches carry a higher risk of introducing errors if not done carefully. A more integrated solution within JOSM, like the enhancements I've proposed, could offer similar functionality with improved safeguards and a smoother workflow.

@taylor.smock, you're absolutely right about the risks of mechanical edits. I completely agree that caution is necessary, and I always review changes thoroughly before uploading. My goal is not to blindly replace text but to have better tools to identify and correct errors efficiently, especially when dealing with large datasets where manual editing becomes impractical.

These enhancements would make the "Tag multiple objects" dialog a much more powerful tool for efficient and accurate bulk editing in JOSM.

[GerdP]

These enhancements would make the "Tag multiple objects" dialog a much more powerful tool for efficient and accurate bulk editing in JOSM.

Yes, I think that's exactly why I wouldn't want such a function. Automated edits are often not welcomed by the community and thus should be rather difficult to do.

[stoecker]

Replying to GerdP:

Yes, I think that's exactly why I wouldn't want such a function. Automated edits are often not welcomed by the community and thus should be rather difficult to do.

Yes and no. You can't solve social problems by software. So while I agree it shouldn't be foolproof that doesn't mean we shouldn't support such improvements.