Messages

[@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...

@slarti76
If visible on the map, a complete list makes sense. But here it is only about highlighted ones.

I honestly don't know what you mean. Perhaps you have another use case? I mean, highlighting is just an additional feature, but it starts with selecting categories to show on the map. And there, just like I did with "LoPoints (offline)", I want to click on the respective button and browse through a list.
Let's say I'm looking for mountains - dunno how OAM stores them, "mountain", "peak", "summit"? Don't wanna try all 3 search words, typing on phone is a nuisance. But it's definitely "Nature", so in offline points I scroll to root category "Nature", open it, and voilà: "Peak".

And yes, ok, the search is intelligent enough to show "peak" when typing "summit". It's just the first example that came to mind, but there will always be similar words that are not found by the search. And again, typing is hard, especially with gloves, so a nested list is often better.

[@slarti76]

@slarti76
track in "Image & stats" > interesting. Can't simulate it. Does it have not just for one track?

Yeah, although it doesn't happen consistently. One time I tried, the previews started out correct, but when I came back to app they were like that. Don't really care about the previews, but the image exports are a shame when you don't see the whole track. Anything I can do to help debug?

10 categories > these are pre-selected by us. Not just random, but quite precisely selected most useful categories. It will personalize as you use this function.

Yeah, I realized this by now, and I like it.

Still, why is it a flat list here as compared to the nested one as in "LoPoints (offline"). Search is nice, but sometimes it's useful to scroll through all options, and that's obviously easier when structured.

A compromise could be this:
Start with prefilled/most used list, but allow wildcard "*". So when user just enters "*", they get the full list (and cannot complain about its length, because they asked for it ).

It makes sense, even if the 10 (15 in my case) "most important categories" may not be ideal for everyone. But I think for many users this is a sensible pre-selection. Over time, however, this list will become your individual history list, as categories that you have been added and later deleted will appear at the top.
You can easily try it out: Add e.g. "Wasserfall" and delete the category again with the rubbish bin icon. If you then click on the plus icon, waterfall will be listed first.

Ah, ok, didn't realize that it's a "recents" list. That's good, agreed.

Do you want to see an endless list that you have to scroll through forever? Not me!

Me neither, but what's wrong with the nested list used by "LoPoints (offline)"? Would be consistent, why have a one-level "everything but the kitchen sink" list here and a categorized list for off line points?

@slarty76: I see 15 (!) catagories in the first list, which can be scrolled. I think this is a preselection of the most important categories. If you use "Search in categories" above, you will find countless other categories.

Yes, you're right, by searching I find more. But that makes no sense! Without search, I want to see all categories! Right now I see exactly the 10 in the screenshot, with no way to change that. I don't wanna guess category names...
And if it's a "best of": who decided to include "Spring"? This is so personal what would be best of, I'm either missing the place to choose that or it's a bug, especially given that you say you have 15 in the initial list.

I understand that a browser system no longer makes sense when there are hundreds of categories. I don't understand though what this "display only highlighted LoPoints" option has to do with the browser system – it's two separate decisions.

I'm confused: I see exactly 10 categories, which fit easily on one page. Is there a "prefilter" that I may have accidentally set?

I also noticed there's still something wrong with the previews: The track is not completely within the preview, previously there was some padding - see screenshot 1.
It's actually the same when using the Share/Export as "Image & stats" or "Track Overview" - see screenshot 2. I assume the same algorithm is used internally to calculate the "bounding box".

Sorry, if I missed something, but is there a reason online LoPoints don't work on offline pixel maps? Offline LoPoints work. If it's not a bug but necessary, at least the sidebar entry should be disabled, right now it's very confusing.

And talking about Offline LoPoints:
The eye in the sidebar has no effect - (de)selecting of points can only be done in the category dialog.

And one very small improvement request: In Google Maps, you can long-press on a POI name and the name is copied to the clipboard. In Locus, that would also be very helpful for points and tracks - I often need the name somewhere else (search, file-rename, etc.), and now it's Edit - Long-press to select a word - Select All from the popup menu - Copy from popup menu, very tedious.

Menion, now that the new DB is working great and flawless, I think I remember you had already some improvements planned for later - is there a list somewhere here or can you let us in on the future?

Personally, what I would appreciate the most would be favorite folders and tags... 

[@slarti76]

@slarti76
UI difference > easy - on tab, you probably did a fresh install right? I've decided to offer two modes. Easy for a new users (less buttons etc) and "compatibility" for existing users, so the shock is not so big. Change it in the myLib menu > "Style" dialog.

Uh, thx, totally forgot about that. Sorry.