Opened 16 years ago
Closed 16 years ago
#2917 closed defect (fixed)
[PATCH] Download to new layer if Datalayer isn't active
Reported by: | malenki | Owned by: | Gubaer |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | |
Component: | Core | Version: | latest |
Keywords: | "new data layer " | Cc: | Gubaer |
Description
If I have already some downloaded data in JOSM and want to download some more, this new date gets downloaded to a new layer if an other than the already existing data-layer is selected. Yes, [ ] load to new layer is unchecked.
JOSM 1769 java version
"1.6.0_14" Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_14-b08)
Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 14.0-b16, mixed mode)
2.6.30-1.slh.2-sidux-686
Attachments (1)
Change History (6)
by , 16 years ago
Attachment: | select-existing-edit-layer.patch added |
---|
comment:1 by , 16 years ago
Summary: | Download to new layer if Datalayer isn't active → [PATCH] Download to new layer if Datalayer isn't active |
---|
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|
comment:3 by , 16 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|---|
Resolution: | → wontfix |
Status: | new → closed |
In my opinion the patch should't be applied and the requested behaviour shouldn't be implemented.
If the active layer was't an OsmDataLayer and the patch was applied it would add the data to an "arbitrary" OsmDataLayer which is most likely not what most users expect ("arbitrary" in the sense of whatever OsmDataLayer happen to be the "first" one in the list of current layers).
Rather, JOSM should continue to load to a new layer as it does now. It's very easy to merge this layer to whatever OsmDataLayer you want (actually, this last step could be easier - I'm working on it :-))
comment:4 by , 16 years ago
Resolution: | wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
When the "download to new layer" option is not used, then usually the user has only one layer. In this case the downloading to this layer would depend on the fact if the layer is enabled or not. This is not good. If you fear about merging into arbitrary layers, then restrict this merging to the case when only one layer exists.
Does no longer apply.
Karl, is this still relevant?