-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Start Nearby map zoomed in #1987
Labels
Comments
Possibly also rather than just have a fixed scale factor it could depend on pin density i.e.. start more zoomed in if lots of pins on screen - although this could be over-complicating it. |
@misaochan Just to make sure all of us are on the same page. The following changes needs to be done
|
@ashishkumar468 Yes, that sounds good.
|
ashishkumar468
added a commit
to ashishkumar468/apps-android-commons
that referenced
this issue
Nov 20, 2018
* Increased the default zoom level in nearby to 12 so that user doesnot have to zoom in to see nearby places
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
I had a conversation with User:Jim Henderson at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Mobile_app#Wish_list , and a concern of his (that I agree with) is that the map frequently auto-zooms out to display an unusable dense cluster of pins, which requires the user to keep zooming back in.
I think that whenever the user starts Nearby, the map should be zoomed in to a reasonable distance (perhaps with the screen width corresponding to 1km)? The reason is that nobody can use the map while it is zoomed out the way it currently is. In order to use it, everyone will have to zoom in - so we should do that work for them.
The Nearby items (pins) however, should be loaded and populate the map to a larger radius (the way it currently works). It is just the initial display to the user that should change.
(Currently we also zoom out whenever the user taps the Nearby list button. That should be fixed too. ;))
This will need to work alongside #591 , but there should hopefully be minimal conflict.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: