Reuse area definition for different maps
Sometimes you are interested in more than one map type for the same area. It would be useful to be able to reuse the area definition of a downloaded map to download another type.
Example: I want to go to Mt. Ranier, WA (USA). I discover that the Google maps has very useful info about towns, roads, etc,, but very poor info for the backcountry. At the same time, USA Topo is ok for the backcountry, but outdated and difficult to read for the rest. It would be nice to be able to define the interesting area just once, and then download both the Google maps and the USA Topo tiles.
The easiest (for the user) and most flexible way of doing this, in my opinion, is to just add an option "use existing map" in the "download map" dialog window. If the user choose that option, a list of the already downloaded maps is presented, so that the user can pick one and have the downloaded area defined by whatever is covered by that map.
I like this idea 
Hmm... If you already downloaded a map, you can center it, switch to the online map and download it right away... ;)
Hmm... If you already downloaded a map, you can center it, switch to the online map and download it right away... ;)
You are right, that would work. However:
- if you are using "this screen", you still have to match the zoom level (to have the same area enclosed in the screen)
- it doesn`t work with other methods of defining the downloaded area, like manual area definition or along a path (well, it works if you save the path...)
I agree that there is probably a workaround for each method that make it possible to obtain the same result. Just it seems to me not too complicated, and a lot easier, to just be able to use an existing map to define the coverage area...
Cheers (and happy new year!)
Giacomo
You are right, that would work. However:
- if you are using "this screen", you still have to match the zoom level (to have the same area enclosed in the screen)
- it doesn`t work with other methods of defining the downloaded area, like manual area definition or along a path (well, it works if you save the path...)
I agree that there is probably a workaround for each method that make it possible to obtain the same result. Just it seems to me not too complicated, and a lot easier, to just be able to use an existing map to define the coverage area...
Cheers (and happy new year!)
Giacomo
Hello Jack,
I had similar idea quite a long time ago. Now, this idea is on my own "TODO" list anyway quite at bottom. So you have also my vote, but number of votes decide how fast this will be implemented, because as you already say "
You are right, that would work", so there are possible, not much user friendly, alternatives how to do this
Hello Jack,
I had similar idea quite a long time ago. Now, this idea is on my own "TODO" list anyway quite at bottom. So you have also my vote, but number of votes decide how fast this will be implemented, because as you already say "
You are right, that would work", so there are possible, not much user friendly, alternatives how to do this
Sounds good to me! But I`m happy to know it is somewhere on the list! :-)
Sounds good to me! But I`m happy to know it is somewhere on the list! :-)
Replies have been locked on this page!