More Location Fixes.

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Dirk Hohndel <dirk at hohndel.org> wrote:
>
> If you pick a dive site from the list that is CLEARLY marked as having a
> GPS location and for most normal users will even be CLEARLY marked with
> taxonomy data. So there is nothing confusing here. You picked a site with
> GPS data. You got that GPS data.

Dirk, YOU are the one not reading things.

> If you think "I have GPS data from the phone, I just can't upload that
> right now" and "the site was Blue Corner" then you type in Blue Corner and
> do NOT pick the pre-existing site. You just type it in and accept that
> name. You get a new site with that name and no GPS data. You download the
> GPS from the webservice when you have internet and it does exactly what
> you wanted it to do.
>
> Easy, intuitive, obvious.

Not intuitive at all. We went through this already. Thats' what we had
in Hawaii, and it sucked.

If I start writing "Blu" and it auto-completes to "Blue Corner", then
an interface that says "but you mustn't choose that name, because that
will screw up your GPS coordinates" is a horrible interface.

It sure as hell is not intuitive.

Seriously, Dirk. We *had* that interface. I used it. I wasn't the only
one confused by it. See the whole previous discussion about it, where
Miika did the exact same thing.

You cannot call ti "intuitive" if two people independently made the
mistake of picking the textual auto-complete, and were surprised when
it screwed up the data.

So my suggestion was that the first entry in the list NEVER ADD GPS LOCATION.

Even if all the *divesites* with that name have GPS location.

Exactly so that you *can* auto-complete the name, without screwing up
GPS. Because I thought we already agreed that that was a requirement.

Your argument is crap, and let me quote it:

> Picking Blue Corner but not getting the GPS location is a ridiculous idea

NO IT IS NOT!

I know have new GPS location. I want to pick "Blue Corner" without
getting the new GPS locations screwed up. Calling that thing a
"ridiculous idea" is wrong. It's not ridiculous, it's *obvious*. I may
have old GPS information. Or, it can be a big dive site with the same
name but different GPS information (my "Turtle Reef" example).

Pick a slightly longer name just to drive the concept home. Pick
something that isn't as easy to type.

I want to auto-complete the *name* of the dive site, not get GPS data
that screws things up.

That is _not_ ridiculous, and I don't understand how you can even
claim it is. It's how things used to work, and they worked very well
indeed. Right now the dive site model has actually made things
*worse*.

                  Linus