Messages

Happy that the problem with the clickpoint of LoPoints is solved - also didn't think of the map magnification being a possible reason.

However, I find the highlighted LoPoints overwhelmingly big - at least 3x as high and double the width. Unfortunately, the size setting changes both highlighted and unhighlighted at the same time.
Menion, would it be possible to get separate selectors for both point icon sizes?

And while we're at point sizes: Could you add those settings to the presets? I think it makes a lot of sense, e.g. I have a biking profile/preset, where I of course want big icons, but also one for exporting track images, where I want the icons more subdued, leaving space for the tracks themselves. And as I can set the map magnification, it makes total sense to be able to adjust icons sizes, don't you think?

I think this case is too rare for us to include it in presets. Aber du könntest einen Vorschlag im Helpdesk machen. Vielleicht gibt es noch mehr die das wollen und können dafür Voten.
You could reduce the size before exporting and then increase it again afterwards.
If you mainly care about the route, you could hide the LoPoi before exporting.

Yeah, good point about the helpdesk.

But the fixed size relation between highlighted points and unhighlighted, that is imho rather straight-forward oversight...

Happy that the problem with the clickpoint of LoPoints is solved - also didn't think of the map magnification being a possible reason.

However, I find the highlighted LoPoints overwhelmingly big - at least 3x as high and double the width. Unfortunately, the size setting changes both highlighted and unhighlighted at the same time.
Menion, would it be possible to get separate selectors for both point icon sizes?

And while we're at point sizes: Could you add those settings to the presets? I think it makes a lot of sense, e.g. I have a biking profile/preset, where I of course want big icons, but also one for exporting track images, where I want the icons more subdued, leaving space for the tracks themselves. And as I can set the map magnification, it makes total sense to be able to adjust icons sizes, don't you think?

@slarti76: All photos taken during track recording are displayed, regardless of whether they have geotagging or not.

However, it would be useful if you could go directly to the folder where the photo is located via the track gallery. Then you could edit/delete it directly and call up the Exif data including coordinates (if available).

Thx for explanation. Still, it would be great to be able to easily turn on display of the image location (where available) from the track details.

Question about the new Pictures-in-track feature: It works for me, when I click on a track all respective pictures are shown, but not the locations. Is that correct? Or is there a way to turn that one? I mean, there is already the feature to show geotagged pictures on the map, and the  you get little markers all over the map. So I'm not sure whether that's missing (for now) or is the idea just to have a a scrollable list within the track details?

Noticed weird new behaviour in Track Editor:
When I do "Insert/edit trackpoint", after I press OK (checkmark), the map centers the initially tapped point again. I'm certain that previously, the map didn't move after the operation - because I find it very annoying and would've notice. The way I usually use it is to "move forward" from the initial point when editing, so I might be far away from the first point when done.
Is that change on purpose? Couldn't find anything Track Editor-related in recent changelog...

I also have sometimes issues, that automatic sync does not happen. What always helps is triggering a manual sync (from the settings). However I also had no time yet to document that in detail.

Greetings Ulrich

Thx for feedback, but my problem is also with Manual Sync. So those two tracks didn't sync manually until I edited them slightly.

while cycle touring over last 1.5 months I use cloud sync between 2 or 3 devices, 2 or 3 times per day without trouble, although no split of tracks involved. I've always wished for a list, post-sync, of the actual names of folders, points & tracks that have changed but...

My experience so far was the same, it's really the first instance.

Anybody recently had problems with tracks not syncing?
I never experienced any bugs since sync became production-ready. Also the change in the database went flawlessly. But now I had a clear case where there were two tracks on one device that just wouldn't appear on another, no matter how often I pressed Sync. I could solve it by slightly editing the description of those two tracks, then they were synced.
Unfortunately I didn't have time to document this, as I was on the road. I can only say that the tracks were split tracks: I split the original track (deleting the original), then I split the second part of that again (also deleting the "original"), and the two results of the last split failed to sync. Dunno if that's related...

@slarti76
LoPoints not working without LoMaps > I'm still unable to simulate it . They work with all maps for me. What maps are you using?

Well, it's my beloved OruxMaps format map - I know, I'm the last one to use them
It does work e.g. with the raster map downloaded with Locus' own system, so it's not an all-raster-maps thing.

I got several observations about the new LoPoints:

• They still don't work with offline raster maps. I mentioned this before, don't remember if there was a reason, but it's inconvenient and confusing - if this is technically not possible, Locus should at least display a message when activating LoPoints over a map which doesn't support it.
• Worse, when I switch back from raster map to other map with LoPoints on, they still don't appear. I have to zoom in or out (sometimes multiple times) to "trigger" display.
• The highlighted icons have an un-intuitive "tap point": You have to click on the tip of the arrow. But the intuitive thing is to tap the icon itself. When several icons overlap each other and I tap on the top-most, I instead select some half-hidden one in the background. Same applies for moving the center cross over some point - I can be slap-dap in the middle of a "food & drinks" icon and a box pops up saying "guidepost" (which is not even a highlighted category).

[@slarti76]

@slarti76
splitting of tracks > as I see, there was a modification in the code in August 2022. If the time of the first trackpoint (of the original track) matches the time of the original track, and then if the time of 1. trackpoints of 1. segment is earlier than 1. trackpoints of 2. segment, the app uses these times.

So generally, this should work as you expect and exactly as confirmed @Graf Geo (thanks). You see these problems for your own recorded tracks that have for sure correct times for each trackpoint?

Ah, I think I now know why the result is different: I already edited the original track, especially I removed some points at the beginning (because I started the recording early). If I understand your description correctly, that means that your algorithm is now not "activated", as the first (remaining) trackpoint already has another time than the track's creation time.
Does that sound about right?

To be honest, I don't understand the reasoning for that complicated rule - I mean, removing trackpoints at the beginning sounds like a pretty normal thing to do?!

So the workaround is clear: Split first, remove points later. Still, I find the condition a little contrived and would prefer Locus just always use the time of the first point of the second part as starttime.

I did that. All parts have the same name and any letter at the end. And it is still sorted correctly by start time when "created on" is selected as the criterion.

Only when two parts have the same start time, which is logically the case for the first half (previously _01) and the first quarter (previously 01_01), are they sorted alphabetically.

Don't know what to say, but I can reproduce my behaviour. When I rename one part to "aaa" it jumps above of the other part, and when I rename it to "zzz", it jumps below (or the other way round, depending on Reverse or not). Must be some other aspect still at work - perhaps Menion can shed a light?

Hello @slarti76:

But that's exactly what happens. When I split a track, both parts get the date and time of the first track point. I've checked this several times now.

The tracks are sorted correctly in the folder, both by creation date and modification date.

I shared a 5-hour bike ride. Part one gets the ending _01 and the start time of the entire track, part 2 gets the ending _02 and the start time when I was at that point. I then shared both parts again (endings _01_02 and 01_02 or 02_01 and 02_02). Here, too, the start times are taken from the respective first track point. All parts are sorted correctly.

Just to be sure: I am using the current beta version of LM4.

No, just rename the tracks such that it differs from the correct order and you will see it's wrong. I just tested it again with latest beta. Also, when I look at the track data, the timestamp shown directly under the title bar is exactly the same for original and both split tracks.
It only looks correct at first because the number postfixes are sorted alphabetically, too.

[@slarti76]

@slarti76
agree, it may be useful. Unfortunately, I do not have "first trackpoint time" easily available for sorting in the database. There will be a major database update during next year, so I'll try to keep this in my mind 

Menion, I'd like to take you up on that

So, just as a recap, because I stumbled over it again several times recently:
When splitting a track, both parts seem to be keeping the exact same "creation date/time". Now, when sorting the track list by creation time, they're obviously in the same position, and then the tiebreaker is either alphabetical or just random (I'm not sure). But one of the tracks is now clearly after the other, so there is a correct creation order. But now, this leads to tracks in wrong order in 50% of the cases.
I initially proposed to give the second part of the split the creation time of its first trackpoint. I do understand the argument against that, because it's technically not the creation time. As an alternative, I proposed a new sort order "By track start" (date/time) or "First trackpoint time".
So, is it possible now?

I very much hope for improvements here and make the following suggestions

What about adding the possibility to open the parameter settings by long-clicking the profile title? (Everything else could stay the same, including the three-dot-menu.)

Then you can do it with the menu as well. That's something you don't change very often.

His point is exactly that he changes it very often...