-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1k
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
More intuitive search (like OpenStreetMap) / help with search #2706
Comments
Also see #2623 |
Parts of this are already fixed, others currently in the works, please wait for the next release. |
Hello @sonora , |
@bjohas: Some things are already in the nightly build, like
A new "google search" type textual search box is not yet in the nightlies, as still under development in a separate branch. |
@sonora - many thanks! I'm happy to discuss if the developer is interested! |
I often struggle to find locations in OSMAND. The main proposal is to review the search, and create an OSMAND default search that is simpler. E.g. with http://www.openstreetmap.org/, I can just type in what I want to search for, and get a list of results, from OpenStreetMap Nominatim and GeoNames.
In OSMAND, at least when you're online, there should be a simple option to type, search, and find. One issue is that as soon as you type into the search box, you're presented with
"Search by name"
"Online Nominatim - Places"
"Online Nominatim - Address"
and it's not clear what these do (to the non-expert).
Another issue is that even after searching in OSMAND, you still have to tap "find more" to find results. If you search (e.g.) for a major capital city, that doesn't really make sense.
Clearly, the "POIs search" (partially a "browse") is very helpful, as are "address", "location", "favourite", "history". Maybe a "help screen" could be added in the short term, to help users find their way?
What do people think? I'd be very happy to have a chat with the developer for this feature, to see whether are better "information architecture" could be found...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: