Tracks nested folder structure

[pps]

Dear OsmAnd team,

I love your wonderful app!

Still I have a wish. Over the years I accumulated 350 tracks and reuse them from time to time. To keep overview, I organize them in a folder structure (country > region, and in some cases even > sub-region).

But OsmAnd shows all of them on a single screen at 

Hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... > 

They even appear in an arbitrary order and it is really hard to find the tracks I want to display. 

I would wish you would replace the "Show GPX data" flat panel by a folder tree structure where users can drill into the subfolders. Folder and file names should be alphabetically ordered (if you don't wish to give users an option to order as thy like).

An extra bonus would be to associate the track appearance (color, transparency, width) with each individual track shown together with others at the same time. That would help distinguishing them. But compared to the folder tree structure that would be a luxury nice-to-have only and it might make the code more complicated whereas I guess that for the simple folder tree structure you can reuse some existing open source code.

-Peter

[Xavier]

On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 07:27:57AM -0700, pps wrote:
>Dear OsmAnd team,
>
>I love your wonderful app!
>

>Still I have a wish. ...

Your wish is reasonable.

But, your assumption that we are the "OsmAnd team" is incorrect.

This group is simply users helping users, we are not the developers nor
do we have any control over development.

You will want to submit your improvement suggestion to the OsmAnd
github issues page: https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues

That location is where you reach the "OsmAnd team" (i.e., the
developers).

[Akkana Peck]

pps writes:
> But OsmAnd shows all of them on a single screen at
> Hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... >
> They even appear in an arbitrary order and it is really hard to find the
> tracks I want to display.
>

> I would wish you would replace the "Show GPX data" flat panel by a *folder
> tree structure *where users can drill into the subfolders. Folder and file

> names should be alphabetically ordered (if you don't wish to give users an
> option to order as thy like).

I agree, and if you file an enhancement request on GitHub, please
post here so I can subscribe to it.

But meanwhile, you CAN see GPX files in a tree structure via:
[Hamburger menu] | My Places | Tracks

It's a little bit harder to get to, but so much easier to navigate.

...Akkana

> An extra bonus would be to associate the track appearance (color,
> transparency, width) with each individual track shown together with others
> at the same time. That would help distinguishing them.

That would also be great. In My Places you can assign colors to
each GPX file, but that's only useful for one or two, not for
a large collection where you'd have to assign a new color each
time you enabled a new track. It does however give you a way to
color the currently recording track differently from saved tracks,
which is very helpful.

...Akkana

[pps]

Dear Xavier and Akkana,

 

OK, you are not the developers. But nevertheless, a big thank-you to you! Complex software needs good support.

 

Thanks for pointing me to

Hamburger menu > My Places > Tracks >

I was not aware of this alternative to

Hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... >

 

It fulfills my needs. Now I don't understand why

Hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... >

is provided at all. If it is just a poorer implementation of

Hamburger menu > My Places > Tracks >

why keeping it? In my cases it made me believe it is the only way to get to the tracks and I did not search further.

 

Would it be better to remove

GPX files... >

from

Hamburger menu > Configure map >

?

 

-Peter

[Peter B]

Example: you did select multiple files in

Hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... >

and later you switch them of with the small slider, because you don't need it for some time..
If you switch the slider on again you get the latest selection of your files.
This is the advantage of using

Hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... >

Peter

[Xavier]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:25:43AM -0700, pps wrote:
>It fulfills my needs. Now I don't understand why
>
>Hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... >
>
>is provided at all. If it is just a poorer implementation of
>
>Hamburger menu > My Places > Tracks >
>
>why keeping it?

If you dig into both, you will notice that they are not at all the same
(although they do overlap somewhat).

Hamburger > Configure Map > GPX Files is for turning on/off the display
of GPX files on the map, and selecting one or more to show on the map.

Hamburger > My Places > Tracks appears to be the main intended method
for 'organizaing' and 'analyzing' the tracks (note that the other menu
merely allows turning on/off the on-map display, but this one allows
sharing, deletion, renaming, detailed statistical analysis, etc. Now,
within the Tracks area, you can "show on map" individual GPX tracks.
This is where the functions overlap.

So if were asked to guess, the "configure map > GPX" area was meant as
a fast way to show/hide individual GPX files on the main map display,
while the "My Places > Tracks" was meant as the main
management/organizational area.

>Would it be better to remove GPX files... from Hamburger menu >
>Configure map ?

Since it appears to have been meant to be a fast way to turn on/off
track display on the map, I'd say "no". What you noticed however is
that it is not as "quick" when one has a large number of tracks, so it
could be improved by adding your suggestion (maybe either a toggle
between flat vs. nested views, or an auto-toggle from flat to nested
once the count of tracks exceeds some threshold).

[pps]

I agree with Peter B.: toggling the mini slider close to " GPX files... " on/off at

Hamburger menu > Configure map >

is a nice feature that only

Hamburger menu > Configure map >

offers.

But I do not agree with Xavier.

Hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... > 

does not facilitate anything faster than

Hamburger menu > My Places > Tracks >

Just count the taps to display another track:

1. hamburger menu > 2. Configure map > 3. GPX files... > 4. scroll and check the check box in front of the track's path > 5. OK > 6. tap anywhere on the map or tap the left arrow to close the "Configure map" pane

1. hamburger menu > 2. My Places > 3. Tracks > 4. Tap the (sub-)folder name > 5. tap the vertical ellipsis right to the track name > 6. Show on map >

Of course, if you are in Configure map where the mini slider is provided next to "GPX files... ", it would be weird if one could not tap "GPX files... " to get to the tracks. So, the best solution when "GPX files... " is being tapped, is displaying the "Hamburger menu > My Places > Tracks >" screen instead of the "GPX files... " screen of limited functionality.

This way the application becomes a little easier to comprehend for users and even the code shrinks.

When this change is being made, two minor things should be considered as well:

1. "GPX files... " on the "Configure map" screen could be renamed "Tracks..." for consistency. I know that in GPX files there is a difference between routes and tracks and the file does not necessarily contain any track or a route. It could possibly contain unconnected waypoints only. But this is rarely used and users who use such GPX files will probably associate them with the menu item "Tracks..." as well.

2. Today, under hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... >, the width of the track line on the screen can be chosen (Thin, Medium, Bold). Under hamburger menu > My Places > Tracks >, this is not possible today, but it should be added here.

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 5:40:51 PM UTC+2, Xavier wrote:

...

Hamburger > My Places > Tracks appears to be the main intended method
for 'organizaing' and 'analyzing' the tracks (note that the other menu
merely allows turning on/off the on-map display, but this one allows
sharing, deletion, renaming, detailed statistical analysis, etc.  Now,
within the Tracks area, you can "show on map" individual GPX tracks.  
This is where the functions overlap.  

So if were asked to guess, the "configure map > GPX" area was meant as
a fast way to show/hide individual GPX files on the main map display,
while the "My Places > Tracks" was meant as the main
management/organizational area.

...

[Xavier]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:34:14PM -0700, pps wrote:
>But I do not agree with Xavier.
>
>Hamburger menu > Configure map > GPX files... >
>
>does not facilitate anything faster than
>
>Hamburger menu > My Places > Tracks >
>
>
>Just count the taps to display another track:

Try turning on (or off) plural tracks at once. The difference in taps
between the two methods only really becomes apparent when adding more
than one. And the larger number added or removed at once, the greater
the reduction in taps with the configure > GPX dialog method.

Actually, the largest reduction would occur when turning off a plural
set of visible tracks while simultaneously turning on another set of
presently not displayed tracks.

For a single track both take equivalent effort/taps.

Now, as to how often anyone is turning on or off plural tracks at once
I have no way to estimate.

[Grzegorz Adamiak]

I second pps on displaying GPX files in nested folders in the configure map menu and possibly renaming it to "tracks". That would help a lot.

I also second Xavier's point about the necessity of the menu itself. I use it and find it handy and don't see a point in removing it or replacing it with the "my places > tracks".

[pps]

So, bottom line:

We all agree that the UI element for a similar thing is called "GPX files..." under "Configure map" and "Tracks" under "My Places", especially as My Places > Tracks > does allow manipulating files whereas Configure map > GPX files... > does not.

We all agree "GPX files..." should be renamed "Tracks..."

Also we all agree that the mini slider next to "GPX files..." under "Configure map" is valuable and must not be removed or replaced.

Where we do not agree, is whether the special flat representation of tracks under Configure map > GPX files... shall stay as is or be replaced by the UX of My Places > Tracks > .

We found out that today the number of taps is the same if only a single track is added to the screen. 

We also stated that today measured in number of taps the method Configure map > GPX files... is a little faster if users chose multiple tracks to display at the same time.

But for tracks in the same (sub-folder the difference is only one single tap independent of how many tracks you select and/or unselect in the same (sub-)folder: at My Places > Tracks > just tap the map icon in the middle of the bottom bar. It will replace all the track icons left to the track file names by select boxes. You can then select and unselect as many as you want in the current (sub-)folder by a single tap.

So, Configure map > GPX files... will only be faster by more than a single tap, if the tracks to select and/or unselect are in different (sub-)folders. But if users display multiple tracks at the same time, which is already a rare use case compared to displaying single tracks only, and they manage those tracks to be displayed together in multiple (sub-)folders, how likely is it that these users have only very few folders and tracks, so that they will not get lost at scrolling the special flat file representation under Configure map > GPX files...?  Close to 0%.

I would not look at keeping a neglectable goodie for close to 0%. I would instead try to make the app simpler and easier to comprehend, to the advantage of the majority of users. That would mean replacing the special "Show GPX data" flat pane by the same page that can also be reached via My Places > Tracks >.

[Peter B]

--We all agree "GPX files..." should be renamed "Tracks..."

NO, not at all. Not only tracks can be opened, but all kind of GPX files: tracks, routes and waypoints. This is a very nice feature !

[Grzegorz Adamiak]

Actually, the My places > Tracks should probably be renamed to GPX files to reflect the content as GPX can contain any combination of tracks, waypoints and routes. Anyway, I think this should be unified for consistent user experience.

I would very like to see a nested folder structure in the Configure Map > GPX files with option to turn on/off all files in a folder similarly to the global slider switch.

[Akkana Peck]

Grzegorz Adamiak writes:
> Actually, the My places > Tracks should probably be renamed to GPX files to
> reflect the content as GPX can contain any combination of tracks, waypoints
> and routes. Anyway, I think this should be unified for consistent user
> experience.

On the other hand, what if OsmAnd ever adds the ability to read
KML/KMZ tracks? (KML is fairly easy to parse, not much harder than
GPX.) Then it would have to be renamed again. I suspect most people
who use waypoint files (I do) could figure out that waypoints should
go in Tracks.

> I would very like to see a nested folder structure in the Configure Map >
> GPX files with option to turn on/off all files in a folder similarly to the
> global slider switch.

Definitely. Configure Map is easier to get to, and it would be an easier
way of turning on multiple GPX files except that it's so hard to use
if you have a lot of files.

...Akkana