> On Feb 24, 2019, at 2:33 PM, Berthold Stoeger <bstoe...@mail.tuwien.ac.at> > wrote: > > On Sunday, 24 February 2019 23:11:36 CET Dirk Hohndel wrote: >>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:20 PM, Berthold Stoeger >>> <bstoe...@mail.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:> >>> To me it seems somewhat questionable to create a new dive site for every >>> new GPS location anyway. Perhaps detach these two things? >> >> The problem is how else would we do this? >> From a workflow perspective... I have a GPS dive computer. I download from >> it. It provides me with GPS information. So after the download I should >> have an un-named dive site with the correct GPS information, shouldn't I? >> What would be a better workflow? > > My intuition would be to save the GPS information with the dive and use that > to suggest sensible dive-sites when doing the dive site association. Little > is > gained by automatically generating a new dive site for every dive, if it has > to be consolidated afterwards anyway.
Totally true. And we already do that. But since today we have no way to create a dive site FROM that info in the dive, it's created when the dive is created. But you are completely correct - it would make a LOT more sense to switch to a model where you explicitly create the dive site from information in the dive. > An "autogen" flag as you suggested might also be viable. > > I wonder if GPS entry & exit should be optional dive fields that are > independent of the dive site. After all, you might dive the same site from > different entry points, no? See the email I just sent... the infrastructure for this already exists :-) > Of course, this all needs some tuning concerning the map, etc. The map so far doesn't show those additional points at all. More stuff to be added, I guess :-) /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list subsurface@subsurface-divelog.org http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface