Talk:Recording GPS tracks

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PDOP

PDOP is discussed on this page and although there are links to other articles that give all kinds of information about what it is and what it means, there is no information given in lay terms that explains to a user where to find this number. I use a Garmin 60CSx which is arguably one of the more common GPS units in use for this purpose. Can't we tell a new user (such as myself) how to determine their PDOP value at any given moment?

Record the Track (point #7)

Perhaps I was overzealous in changing the information in point #7 on this page. However, it indicated that OSM couldn't handle POIs, areas, etc. Although, I am new to OSM, I have already worked with such things in OSM which indicates to me that this must no longer be the case. If I'm wrong, correct me. I certainly don't want to step on anyone's toes.

issues with the tabs

System-users-3.svgAdamant1 (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.) recently deleted the tabs on all GPS pages with those tabs along with this comment: "Deleted the tab menu. It was confusing, outdated, didn't work well on mobile. Labels did not match article titles, order was confusing, header paragraph was only relevant to one tab. Added related links instead" --aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please, Adamant1, could you describe what is confusing and outdated with this long-standing navigation, which easily shows the reader a group of to-be-read pages?
Could you describe on which mobile it does not work - and in which way? I have tried it on my Android stock browser - it works fine. With the general issue that our wiki a pparently has no mobile style.
Labels did not match article titles, yes - they are abbreviations. What is wrong with this? Yes, we should adjust e.g. "Record" vs. "Recording".
Order is fine for me (accuracy and reviews are at the end, because they are not that important, I guess). What is confusing for you?
Header paragraph (the green box, right?) is an intro for the group. Nothing wrong with this. --aseerel4c26 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
System-users-3.svgaseerel4c26 (on osm, edits, contrib, heatmap, chngset com.) Thank you for bringing up counter points to my changes in the talk section where other people can get involved in the discussion if they so wish. I am open abandoned the changes if an understandable, valid reason is given. Before I address your questions though, might I ask what the rules are on the process of reverting an edit someone does and what counts as a valid reason for a reversion? Although I do feel that it is important for a user to justify their edit, I also think it is on a person who reverts someone to clearly state why they are doing it and to contact the original editor first to see if they are willing to fix their own issues first. Unless it is a matter of vandalism. Both of which you did not do in this instance. Saying you reverted me because you disagree with the edit is not an adequate reason to change it back. Otherwise, anyone can revert anyone just because they feel like it right? Plus, what we agree or don't agree on is pretty subjective and not what determines good practices. The rules and guidelines do. it also puts the person who did the edit on the defensive immediately because it puts the responsibility on them to defend what they are doing beyond the summary comments when they should not have to. Plus, it gives the impression to new editors like myself that there is no reason to edit things on the wiki page in the first place because everything they do will just get reverted by combative "elite" users. Which isn't conducive of a community based system. Finally, there is no ultimate reason why your opinion of how pages should be is any better than mine. Like I said, because like I've said, its subjective. In a more general way, there are plenty of mentions in the guidelines about being bold with edits, trying new things, etc etc. So unless the edit was vandalism, I see no valid reason for you reverting me in the first place and you haven't given one. If you can point me in the direction of the guidelines pertaining to the proper use of reversions though, that might help things up a little.
As far as your specific concerns go. There is an on going discussion between me and Verdy_p on my talk page about it which is pretty convoluted, partly due to my predisposition to long winded rants, along with his apparent need to make the discussion more complicated than it originally was. Every question you have is pretty much answered there. If I were to summaries it here though, I don't have an issue with the tabbed system in general. Although a wider argument could be made for their retirement since their is only like three pages on here that use it and the template hasn't been updated in like 7 years. Plus, similar pages could just as easily be grouped together as links in the bottom of the page. My main issue though is the use of them being used on pages that specifically are geared toward how to do something on a mobile device. Like you say, the website has no mobile style. So tabs are not very user friendly at all for people on mobile. The scenario I give on my talk page is where someone is using an app to record GPS tracks at the same time they are using the wiki pages for reference and has to either switch back and forth between portrait and landscape mode constantly because a lot of GPS apps don't support landscape mode, or they have to scroll left and right, on top of having to scroll up and down already. Which makes it near impossible to do. Even in portrait mode there is a lot of scrolling right and left because the tabbed system doesn't word wrap. I'm sure a lot of that could be dealt with by implementing a mobile style, but I'm not a programmer and I'm sure its a way convoluted process than just getting rid of the tabs is. So for me, its like if the tab system works great on PC, which I could argue it doesn't, but not at all on mobile and getting rid of it would make the pages still work good on PC but much better on mobile, then why not get rid of them? Especially since they are pages specifically geared to mobile users. Like, if there was a page about how to do something on an obscure older PC, I would fine with the formatting of that page being more view able on that PC than a modern device if that is how the person is viewing it. In the wider context there are also a lot of references on the wiki cleanup page etc about pages being user friendly for everyone. Even if tabs are "workable" on mobile, they are not user friendly. Aside from allowing things to be grouped together, which can be easily solved by putting a "similar pages" category on the bottom, what actual benefit does it provide? Like I said before about tabs in general, they are hardly longstanding or easy to understand if the template hasn't been updated in 7 years, there were only three people working on it back than, and there's only like 2 instances of them being used on this site, let alone almost none on Wikipedia.
on my other nitpicks, the top pane is phrased clunky, not clear about its over all purpose there, and uses a lot of jargon that lay users probably can't understand. A normal user probably does not understand what GNSS or GLOANASS is and they are not explained anywhere. I'm pretty the wiki cleanup things says pages should be written for the average user and not use excessive tech jargon. Especially if the context of it is not explained. There are not even links to pages on the Wiki explaining what a GNSS is either, as evidence by the fact that clicking on it links to a normal Wikipedia page that is not even about GNSS itself. Further, I have taken multiple geographic information systems classes, I don't think GNSS has came up once, and GLOANASS only has a few times. I think that could be said for a lot of stuff in the tapped pages to though. Ultimately, the top pain should be a summary of what is contained in the pages that are tabbed and it isn't. There's no clear link between it and the other articles at all. Like I said, it could be its own page. So if anything it is a missed opportunity to introduce things, if not completely unnecessary in the first place. As far as the issue of the tabs goes, for usability their titles should be close if not exactly matching, the article titles. Others it is hard to keep up. For instance, there's a huge difference in wording between the article title "Edit GPS tracks" and the tab title attached to it "Modify tracelog." Not to mentioning, are tracks and trace logs the same thing and would the average user even know that? Because its not really clear. Also, the reviews page is not really connected to the top pain or the other tabs in general either or if it is, its not clear how. If anything, the title of the tab should be "GPS device reviews" like the article title. Otherwise, what's being reviewed? As a lay user who is clicking on that tab for the first time it makes me think think it will be about how to review tracks/traces, not being a device review page. Since the other pages in the series were about how to use traces.
Lastly, although it is currently minor, there is a lot of empty space between the words in the tabs and the borders. Semi related to that is the fact that as it stands there are 6 tabs in the series and a good general rule of how to use tabs in web design is that four or five should be the max. There are plenty of other pages on the wiki of similar subjects like the article GPX. So how are more pages going to be included if the number of tabs is already pretty much maxed out or does it just go on for infinity, becoming more and more convoluted as pages are added to it? That wouldn't be as much of an issue with links on the bottom instead of tabs. Also related to that, who decides what counts as being similar enough to be included in the tabs in the first place and are people going to have to ask you or whats his name permission before adding a tab? Also, in order to do that they would have to know where the page for the tabs template can be found and how to format it. Something that for sure is not user friendly. Where as adding a "similar pages" section at the bottom of each article defiantly is and also allows for the addition of broadly related pages.
None of this even addresses the issue of space if someone wants to add an index pane, or other extra boxes to the top, and how there isn't even any room for it now. There is also the fact that the tab system makes it impossible for there to be drop down categories on mobile like there are for other pages already. Which is essentially breaking a feature for mobile users just to have tabs when not having tabs doesn't break anything for people on PCs. To me that is a major issue. Not to mention things that are only problems with tabs like if the pages are consolidated in the future or other wise changed, those breaking parts of it. Along with tabs making it harder to edit pages with other translations than it is without tabs. Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I took the liberty to indent your response - like it is usually done on wiki talk pages. Please could you sign your text? In general, I prefer to keep the discussions here as short as possible - I prefer to rather to mapping. :-) So, please, try to keep your text as short as possible. Your current response is very long...
As far as I know we have no strict rules on wiki reverts. Why I revered is described right here - please do not ignore this. The most important thing is, that it is a group of important pages and that the design is very established - on those pages and on others here in the wiki... since years. Nobody changed or discussed it, so apparently it is fine for many people. Removing the tabs is nothing which needs to be done in a hurry - if necessary at all.
I rather do not read all that quite text on your talk page, sorry, so, thanks for your summary try. I still do not understand what makes the rest of the page less useful on a mobile device with the tabs. Is the page width larger with the text which makes it not word-wrap?
Regarding the tab titles: change them or the page titles. Yes, we should use a common wording regarding tracelog / track.
Regarding the intro: I do not see what your problem with links to WIkipedia is. We should not need to duplicate Wikipedia on general articles. GNSS is explained in the Wikipedia article. GPS+GLONASS is available in usual customer GNSS devices, nothing special about it. --aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I forgot about the indent thing. Really I prefer not to have the discussion in the first place. Especially if it means explaining myself multiple times to multiple people and considering that summary comments should be more than enough. But you didn't think my concise summary comments were enough. So I felt the need to be more in depth so things were clearer. Plus you asked me like six questions. So it was a lot to cover in one message and its not simple subject.
As far as the revert thing goes, although I don't think it is on you to make the rules, nor am I ignoring your reasons for reverting me, there should still be some basic standard for when a revert as opposed to an additive changed should be used. Just reverting someone and being like "Hey, why did you do that? Well, I don't like it" is not an adequate reason in my opinion. Otherwise, anyone could potentially revert everything, just because. Also, as much as there is no hurry to change the tabs, there was no hurry to revert me. You could have just as easily waited for things to be resolved in the other discussion with the other person who reverted me, especially since my change didn't break anything.
Concerning your reason for reverting me, saying something should be done a certain way because it is established is not a good reason for doing something. Especially when it comes to technology. The pages should be able to evolve with the changes in technology and how people access the site. Plus, like I have said multiple times, I don't have an issue with the tab system in the first place. I have an issue with it being used on these specific pages that are discussing how to do something on a mobile device, that will probably be accessed by mobile devices. Yes, in general tabs are good for organizing information, but in this instance the tabs it hard to access the information they are organizing because of the way it works on mobile. Its the difference between the easy readable of the content versus the benefits of tabs as whole. I'm not arguing for or against tabs, I'm simply saying they don't work here, on these pages because of the viewing issues they cause. In this instance. I don't know why and the other guy don't get that. Plus, in general it breaks the page drop down categories for mobile users. I don't think anything should be used that breaks other features of the website. I do realize though that the other guy is the maintainer of the tabs system and is the only one that has updated it in 7 years. So he is obviously going to be bias for their use if its a good thing or not.
I do think in general though that the tab system is bad because if a new person, or even someone other than the two people who maintain the template, want to come along and modify the pages using tabs they can't because it is either to convoluted for them to or it will just devolve into this kind of thing where two people get to dictated how everything else is edited. Hardy_P or whatever his name is went so far as to tell me that know one ::::asked me to edit pages and that if I did an edit even as simple as changing a word in an article that I was breaking the translation system. Not only is that overly hostile, it just turns off people from using the wiki in the first place. In fact, I read over the rules and guidelines multiple times before I edited things and not only does it not say anything about having to discuss edits in the talk page before you do them or that you should ::::ask for permission first, it goes out of its way in multiple places to say that edits can be bold and that trying new things is encouraged. So whatever you think about how the tabs should be used because they are established, know where in the guidelines does it say established things take importance. So if anything, by having tabs and forcing their continued use by reverting someone who changes and then entangling them in a conversation on the talk page where they have to defend themselves like you and Hardy whatever are the rulers of the wiki and us measly "newbs" have to justify everything we do to you before we do it is going against the rules. All I'm saying is there shouldn't be any gate keepers and Hardy P's elitist attitude toward this just burned me on the whole thing. That's nothing to do with you though, but I still think it in factors in. Whatever ::::the thing is, if the automatic response to it being changed is hostility, than there's probably something wrong with it. As far as your assertion that everyone else is fine with it goes, there's really no to know because A. If it was changed before it would of just been reverted by over lord Hardy Whatever. So there would be no record of it. B. If the hostile way I was treated originally about it is any indication of how things handled on here, no one probably would of voiced there opinion against it in the first place because they wouldn't of felt like being attacked for going against the established order.
Oh yeah, yes the issue is that with tabs because of the extra width of the frame pages using it don't word wrap. So on mobile there is a lot of unnecessary left and write scrolling. Along with trying to figure out where the new sentence is because of it. Plus, like I said above it breaks the whole nested down tabbed category thing other pages have on mobile. Pages with tabs on Wikipedia seem to word wrap fine though. So it could just be because this site is on an old version of the mediawiki thing that doesn't support or maybe there is an extension missing. I wouldn't even know how to find out though. Plus, I think tabs are just problematic in general anyway. Thanks for fixing the issue with the titles. As far as the GNSS/Glonas thing goes, I've bought a few GPS devices, along with taken a few GIS classes, and I've never ran into them. It is kind of industry jargon, which in general is not user friendly. Plus I still think the top pane should either be a summary of the content in the tabs or if it is completely different information it should be its own page. Also, yes the Wikipedia
page that is linked references GNSS, but the page is not about that. Its seems flunky to cite a page outside of this wiki that is not even about the thing being cited. There should be a direct connection between the citation and the page its going to, or it shouldn't be cited at all. Plus, if there is a need to site a page explaining what GNSS is, than that just proves that either its jargon or the pane talking about it does a bad job explaining it. There should either be a paragraph explaining it, it should have its own page on this wiki, or it shouldn't be referenced. Otherwise, its not user friendly at all. That's just my opinion though. Plus, the introductory pane and the reviews tab have nothing common and the connection between the two is not clear. Personally, I think it should be axed. The way I see it, its unnecessary and makes no sense. Plus nothing would be lost by getting rid of it and it would actually make things more understandable. Really, this whole tab thing with the introductory window etc etc kind of makes the whole thing seem like a website. Which it isn't. This is a wiki. It shouldn't be designed like a website. They are different things.
Finally, since I don't think it is fair that I'm the only explaining myself here, id like to know specifically why you think tabs are a better way to organize things on this website versus something like just having a "related links" section on the bottom of the page. Especially considering its viewing problems on mobile and the fact that it makes it so only a few "elite" users can modify the pages where they are used. Which majorly goes against the rules and purpose of this wiki.
Anyway, hopefully I was shorter this time and that is little easier to read. Probably I wasn't and it isn't. I don't want to unnecessarily take away from your mapping time with my ranting Though. Its just a complicated subject and I want to make sure I'm clear about things. Since I've already explained it multiple times and it still doesn't seem like the issues I have are getting across properly. Either way, I appreciate you taking the time to read it and respond :)

Adamant1 (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe you could also enlighten me as to why the indent thing is screwed up to. It looks fine on the edit page, but than seems to be messed up when I'm viewing it. I guess that's I get for trying to get involved in the wiki and not sticking to editing the map. I'll make sure my messages from now on are shorter. I'm sure that doesn't help. Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
meta: "So there would be no record of it" - there would be... in the page history. I had a look and did not find someone arguing about the tabs. Sorry for the felt hostility on your side - new thought and views are fine to have here. Hopefully, in the end, for better map data and maps. Please also take into account that other people made up there mind about and invested work in those pages before you, so just deleting the tabs should not happen that easily, in my opinion. Let us work together
meta: The ":" for indention only work at the start of a line (that is: after you hit the enter key). Not sure why they work in edit mode for you. Did you use the visual editor? Try the source code edit instead.
I am not that sure about the many readers on mobile devices for those pages, but let's assume your thoughts about it are true.
So, what does not work on mobile is this: 1: "they don't work here, on these pages because of the viewing issues they cause." 2: "in general it breaks the page drop down categories for mobile users." Right? I sadly do not see what are the "viewing issues" - except the "drop down categories"... but I do not know what you mean by this. I am sorry and would like to understand the issue with it. One section later I found another info: "issue is that with tabs because of the extra width of the frame pages using it don't word wrap" (emphasis by me). That, indeed, is bad. Tested on my Android phone and confirmed (word wrap is active, but the line width is longer than the device's screen causing the need to scroll horizontally). And it even is observable with a desktop browser (Firefox in my case) whose window width is shrunk enough OR the font size being increased much. That indeed is not very accessible. For example the {{Languages}} box word wraps and is not posing such a solid horizontal block which increases the line width even beyond the browser viewport.
What I did not like about the "related links" on the bottom of the page was that it is on the bottom instead of at the top - like the tabs. Too easy to miss and vanishing in the other text.
ToDo:
  • A) remove/modify the tabs because they break proper word wrapping at the end of the device's screen and bring not much advantage on a desktop which could not be achieved otherwise (how?). However, this is a general problem and maybe should rather be solved in general, don't you think? E.g. page Browsing also uses those tabs. For simplicity and to get a start, though, we could first try to solve it here...
  • B) find a better short summary/intro for the group of pages (if there is a common intro at all)
  • C) unify wording (tracelog, track, ...)
I imagine a correctly word-wrapping box with a short text and a listing of those essential steps would be good to have: 1. Record 2. Convert 3. Modify tracelog 4. Upload. Yes, the accuracy and device reviews could be just linked in the "record" page.
Please let me know your thoughts and try to focus on the issue. :-) --aseerel4c26 (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I suggested using a "flex layout" where item are aligned horizontally but can still wrap individually. Anyway on Android or iOS there's nothing that prohibits linewraps within each item tabs (these tabs are implemented as tables, and contents of table cells wrap on all devices (all tabs have their their height adjusted and labels that don't wrap are centered vertically : there's NO CSS to prohibit these wraps. As well the tab headers are short and contain just short words. There's no many tabs that we cannot fit at least 5 words on the same row.
But with "flex" (highly supported on all mobile devices, and notably on mobile phones with narrow screens), we solve that cleanly. What a navbar would like would be jsut a list a buttons automatically adjusted, we would never see any horizontal bar. Anyway the horizontal bar when it appears is only on extremely narrow pagewidths, and even then the scrolling is very limited in size, compared to the huge verticaly scrolling needed to see the vertical list that Adamant1 was using instead, wasting lot of horizontal space on desktop; additionnallyu these vertical lists are even more difficult to tap on a mobile as the links are touching themselves vertically without enough margin: you need to soom in to click them, which is even worse than a small horizontal scrolling for viewing the last tabs completely (the navbar is still visible for most part, not hidden far below, it is immediately usable for navigation with very few user interaction to access it).
Note: Tabs jsut have to be limited in the number of items and labels are short, and the short items are described in the paragraph just above if one wonders what they refer to.
So basically I find tabs even more usable on mobiles than vertical lists (navbars with flex buttons are equally usable).
If you don't know what "flex" means, look into CSS3 specifications and SDKs for mobiles that describe them more completely. Flex layout was introduced first for mobiles and rapidly appeared on desktop browsers (which are easily updated, so almost all users of desktop browsers already have it: modern desktop browsers is nay way a requirement for working in OSM notably with iD which uses and require a fully capable browser (we can ignore the more limtied embedded browsers such as those used on cheap "smartTVs", as they don't have the minimum UI intereaction needed ot worl on them easily: nearly impossible to point and click, very slow input of text, and these embedded browsers are generally limited to just view collections of visual medias, notably photos or videos, or select tracks in a playlist, and allmost all navigation made by 4 arrows, an OK button and a BACK button, sometimes up to 4 color-coded buttons (red, blue, green, yellow), plus volume+/Volume- for audio, actually not handled by the application. These embedded browsers are also usable only to read plain text articles with no links inside. And these apps for smart TVs assume a minimum resolution about 1024x768 and are anyway large enough to render tabs (or flex buttons) and even here these tabs are easier to navigate than long vertical lists after scrolling the page far away.
So I propose just adding a flex layout (it could be autodetected: narrow screens would rendere flex buttons, desktop screen would render classic tabs (tabs are a basic feature of all browsers these days, and this is also true for the OS's application menu/desktop bar which use similar concept for fast navigation; they are very classic and not surprizing users, many users want them and many sites are using this now: it's a great way to naviugate between pages in a group of pages and better than just proposing a "next/previous" navigation except for wizards and step by step tutorials that have an implied order of reading).
Final note: I requested mutliple time to Adaman1 what was the real problem, he never replied. Stating there's a problem without syaing which one is being solved allows no cooperation and the change he made added their own problems that did not exist before and doid not make the application more usable. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Verdy_p, thanks for joining! :-) To have a efficient discussion, please also try to keep your texts short (the part about features of smart TV is not really helpful). It would be great if you could implement a simple example on some subpage (e.g. User:Verdy_p/flex test). I guess that not many know what you mean, and, sorry, really do not want or can read a CSS specification. Thank you! --aseerel4c26 (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Verdy_p, I originally told you what the problem was, no word wrapping, having to scroll right left a lot etc etc on mobile. You just told me to deal with and my blamed the old phone I didn't actually have. I never claimed to be a techy or have your vast knowledge of embedded TV browsers either. So maybe it got lost in translation. Whatever the case about my solution of deleting the tabs not being the best one, I said I was open to alternatives from the beginning and that included keeping the tabs. As long as the word wrapping/excessive scrolling was dealt with. Therefore, I am perfectly willing to accept your proposal. Since it sounds like it solves things better than "just dealing with it." Thanks for getting involved in the conversation and proposing it. I agree with aseerel4c26 that an example would be good, but even without one it sounds like a good idea that would deal with the issue without screwing things up. Something I have no problem with. Adamant1 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Reading over the flex layout thing, I'm not sure if it is actually a good fix or not because it is still over complicated to code/implement, makes it harder for average users to edit the pages, and still makes editors reliant on Verdy_p to implement it and fix a problem that was caused by his template in the first place. Yes, maybe tabs are a good way to organize similar pages compared to doing it with bottom links like aseerel4c26, something that can still be debated, but it has the disadvantage of this whole thing. In the mean time, the tabs titles haven't even been corrected or the the trace/track thing fixed yet either because we are stuck waiting for Verdy_p, due to it being "his thing." Even though it shouldn't be. I could have just made the corrections the first day by myself, but now I can't make basic changes on the page until Verdy_p decides to OK them or do the ones he approves of himself. Which is pretty ridiculous. Implementing an even more complicated system than the one that is already there and just relies on more on Verdy_p to take care of isn't a good system in my opinion. Especially when just getting rid of the tabs solves it already, since word wrap\mobile friendlyness is already supported. Its just broken by tabs. Plus there wouldn't be more unnecessary code that way. Adamant1 (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Adamant1, well, it was broken on mobile (and big font sizes) for a long time and nobody cared about, I see no special need to hurry. Still, you are right that you already could have fixed this part (but at the expense of reducing other usefulness - the tabs). I also agree that if the "flex" thing is hard to edit then it is not that good, that is why I wanted to see an example. I have currently quite a very low amount of time to spare for OSM, so no big work will come from me here currently. Now, since I we know that (and what!) actually is wrong with the tabs, I would not opposing a removal like you originally did. Over there is a start: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aseerel4c26/Sandbox&oldid=1606287 . Shortened text, short and clear link texts. Please let me know your thoughts. Feel free to edit. --aseerel4c26 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Aseerel4c26, I didn't mean to make you guys feel rushed about it. So I apologize if that's how I came across. I know there is no real hurry, but things still should work properly. Although I agree it shouldn't come at the cost of other features if its possible. So taking the time to discuss it is good. I don't really have much time either for these and it doesn't seem like there is that many editors on this wiki in the first place or that things are updated all that much, which is why I just decided to change it on my own originally. Since then I have research on updating the extensions or installing more mobile friendly ones. So we can keep tabs and just have them work probably, but it seems there isn't anyone doing that anymore and it is out of my expertise. Plus, I think you have to be administrator or something. Which I am not. I did notice that Wikipedia has a shortcuts menu on the side of some pages that links to other related pages but still allows for mobile friendliness. Maybe that would be a good option. I don't know if it is doable here though, but I can look into it and give it a try if nothing else works. Its at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Shortcut if you want to take a glance at it.
Thanks for taking the time to try something on your page. It looks good to me and I think it would work good in this instance. Id still like to see a more permanent, template based, solution for this and the other pages with categories like the page with wikiproject cleanup on it so that anyone can change things how they like and that makes things more understandable. Having three different tab systems and like 6 different link frames on one page is pretty convoluted and hard to keep track of in the first place. Even on PCs. Especially since the tab systems are all clumped together one the top. Its just not a very user friendly way of navigation. I think the shortcuts thing on the left side would help deal with that, or just saying to hell with it in this first place and embracing the "see also" page on the bottom. Since that's what is done in most other instances and it must be for a reason. As it is, there are way to many ways the pages are sorted and to many hierarchies. I think it comes at the cost of clarity and the ability to add more information quite a lot. Like on the WikiProject Cleanup page, it could almost be its own page with tabs for each section and each section could have its own pages. Instead its in a tab with other stuff vaguely related stuff and then its own is a really long, disorganized, convoluted mess. Not to mention there is already wiki categories built in to the system for clumping related pages together by adding [[Category: ]] to the page. Why couldn't these and other pages go into a category system like that instead of using tabs? Since its already a built in standard across wiki systems. I happen to notice that Wikiproject Cleanup was not listed in the projects category. So I almost think the tabs template is discouraging people from using the categorization system that is already there.
Anyway, go ahead and implement what you came up with if you want. I think its an improvement I'll also do more research to find a better long term solution that can work across the other pages to. and look into the shortcuts thing. I'm wondering how good your version of it will work if there is more than six tabs to. But that's to figure out later I guess. Sorry this was so long. At least it was mostly on topic this time I think :) Adamant1 (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
As a side note to that, there is also a template and category setup for portals already, which happens to do the same thing the tabs due but has the benefit of working on mobile, while also allowing the pages to be added to a portals category. For example, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Portal:Press. There is also already a page with tabbed categories that make way more sense on how to contribute map data, of which 2 of these pages are already listed in. Therefore, making this specific tab category system not only redundant, but pointlessly confusing. Since it already exists in a more understandable form somewhere else and just having the extra tabs makes things more confusing. There's also a side navigation template that works fine on mobile. Personally, I say we either turn this into a portal so it can have a main page that explains the sub pages better than the top pane allows and be added to a portal category, or we just ditch the whole thing and add the three pages that are not there already into the contribute map data page. Personally, I say the second one makes way more sense, would be way more user friendly, and also has the benefit of us not having to reinvent the wheel or do any extra work. Here's the link to that page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contribute_map_data. Which I might add is pretty convoluted and screwed up itself thanks to this whole tab thing.
Btw, I think the fact that we didn't know about that page from the onset and that there's essentially a labyrinth of extremely similar pages etc goes to show convoluted this whole thing is and how tabs just make it worse. Its also a sign to me that a lot of things need to be consolidated, reorganized, and cleaned up. It shouldn't take a month and a half of sifting and clicking through different pages, decoding different words that mean the same thing, a bunch of conversation, and a bunch of research on coding Wikipedia pages, just so in the end I can read about how to record and upload GPS tracks (traces, tracelogs, whatever) on my phone. Adamant1 (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
One point to be clear: I was NOT the creator of these tabs. I adapted and cleaned them so they work across more browsers.
And I still don't see where these tabs even need to break: not needed even on the smallest devices (about 700x400 pixels), and the whole site is in fact not usable at all with a 400 px width but perfectly navigatable if you turn your device 90 degrees to read it in landscape mode.
This site has many wide tables (that require much more width than these narrow tabs).
And mobile browsers will slighly adapt by minor dezooming of font sizes, or by inserting a scrollbar otherwise, but this is never needed here, unless you want to read this wiki on your tiny smartwatch, which is defintely not the typical device you'll use to read articles like these pages, or will not use to do any mapping work, as it can just display a few words or numeric figures and tiny diagrams and cannot easily point and click many clicks: the navigation is reduced to just "previous/next" and a menu button that will popup on top of everything). Designing pages for these very small devices would be done separately but they won't be able to give many details and not even texts with several pragraphs. And bulleted lists is definitely worse on them than button-like navbars which are easier to tap on any touchscreen (including on desktop) and provide easier/faster navigation to related contents.
Tabs were there since the begining (long before me making them a bit more usable, unified, properly scaled and aligned, compatible with more browsers and more devices, more accessible, translatable, properly ordered including for RTL languages like Arabic or Hebrew...).
I also oppooe the fact you've removed the template to replace this content on every page that must now be all edited (and translated) separately (and even differently) for a section that is now difficult to reach. This means that you(ve created new uinliked pages, dead-ends/orphaned pages, pages that users will not find easily and finally this will lead to duplication of contents by recreation and more maintenance that was not needed.
These tabs were an easy to use TOC presenting several topics discussed below (and you always need to scroll down the page to read the contents but should not need to look where the introduced topics are actually discussed): these are basic links which are there because these pages together would not fit well on a single overlong page that would also be hard to categorize precisely for other more focused details. All is about finding a basic pointer to subtopics.
And I don't see the problem with the intro text (which I did not write). I did not chose the image to the right. It did not choose the subtopics to link in these tabs. These pages were created by various users discussing them in various places, and pointing to them: they should remain in focus of their topic, and organized, they are not just a mere long list of arbitrary links, they are not "See also" sections which are preferably used to refer to neighboring topics but with a small part covering the initial topic.
Note also that mobile devices still cannot navigate easily in categories. This is still a bug/limitation in the current Mobile view of this wiki which still does not impelemnt the full mobile framework of Wikipedia, for technical reasons related to the limitations of this server and the subsequent lack of support of some needed extensions, and more powerful hardware with additional servers and external tools that would be too slow if they were used here).
So if your mobile is very small, please read this wiki in landscape mode (but I do not need it even in my tests on Android, iOS, Windows Phone, Blackberry with modest screen sizes). This was assessed by developer tools or emulators in Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, and even with Opera Embedded on my WebTV or in a GPS device for cars/motos. — Verdy_p (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
So you admit the tabs were made for devices created in 2004, when the template was made, and that you didn't even make them. So why are you so hard up on keeping them then? There's no reason why updating a 13 year old thing should be such an issue. I wasn't saying that the pages shouldn't use tabs. There's no reason they couldn't use more modern ones that do the same type of categorization, but allow for word wrapping or at least take up less space and look more modern. I mentioned a few of the alternative in my post above. Your the one hell set on it being this exact way or nothing. I will say though, that ultimately, the best thing is nothing, because the there are already other better ways to categorize pages built in that are not as complicated and will allow other people to add, take away, or rename categories as they see fit. At this point, you won't even allow that much and its not your call to make.
Like I on your talk page, I don't what your on about with the fact that I removed the template by replacing content on every page that needs to be translated ext ext. As I Have said repeatedly, no content was moved or deleted, except for the tabs. The top heading introductory paragraph was going to be put into the individual articles, but like the last time you reverted me, you did it instantly and I didn't have time to. So nothing would have been lost if you had of cooled your jets and waited until I was done. Also, like I have said multiple times, a lot of the translation pages are already out of sync of some of them already didn't have the tab template on them and were doing the bottom related links thing instead. That had nothing to do with me. It was already like that. There is no orphaned pages or dead links created either because the pages are still essentially the same. With the same headings. Plus, you would of had no way of knowing one way or another, because you reverted me almost instantly and wouldn't of had the time to check. Plus, even if their where, its not like those things couldn't have been corrected. That's part of basic maintenance. I would of totally done it myself. Its not like I'm completely ignorant to the possibility of a dead link or two being created by my change and wouldn't have account for it. That's where your sense of superiority comes in I guess. You act like your the only one smart enough to have thought of all of this. Your not. I actually always make sure to fix dead links or other problems I cause on a page after I do an edit. Especially if it is major. And I take the time to review my edits to make sure everything is correct multiple times every couple of days until I am sure its good. That's not to say little mistakes wont be made here and there though. I've seen a few pages you edited with a lot of spelling errors. You don't see me reverting your edit because of them though. I just fix them. Whatever mistakes I do make, they definitely can't be fixed if you revert the change immediately after. I know it gives you a good excuse for the revert, but its a really lame, weak one. Like I told you the first time you reverted me, if you had of held your horses and waited a while I would of corrected any mistakes I made. Your just impatient and have to have it your way though.
So giving that for a reason is complete none sense. Not to mention it is not a valid reason to keep a page the same way forever. Like I said in your talk page, there is plenty of German pages that are nothing like the comparable ones in English. I don't see you waving your fists around at them and tell them not to edit their pages because it screws ours up. A lot of other countries pages are out of sync with each other. They don't care. So why should we? It's an unsustainable goal anyway. Its more important that the page works well for people on different platforms that nitpicking over if some African countries page has a similar word in a paragraph to ours. No links are broken by taking the tabs away either, because its still the same freaken pages being referenced. A matter of fact, it might be better in that regard because the pages don't have the same categories associated with them at this point and your using too different tab templates on top of each other that are essentially doing the same thing, but are not shared equally across all the pages. It just over complicates things.
As far as your pointless dribble about the wiki and its lack of mobile support, I already know all that. You've repeated like 6 times. There's nothing you or I can do about it though and your essentially bringing it up to make the argument that we should leave things how they are because wiki wont update their system. WHEN THERE IS ALREADY MUCH BETTER WAYS OF DOING IT THAT SUPPORT MOBILE, like getting rid of the tabs all together, among other things. So its not an argument. Your clutching at straws.
No my mobile is not very small. Thanks for making a claim about what I am using again though. You could of just asked me in the first place instead of assuming things. Its like you'll put it on anything if it is wrong or not, as long as it deflects from the deficiencies of the tabs. If you really want to know, I have a Oneplus 5. The screen is 5.5 inch, and the resolution is 1080 x 1920 pixels. Its hardly small. You keep throwing out these really dumb things that obviously I would of thought of already. I clearly didn't start this whole thing because I was trying to read the wiki on a flip phone or an android watch. I'm not that stupid. Thanks though. That's really all you have isn't it? Next you'll be claiming on viewing the page through a submarine porthole or something, because you clearly have nothing else.
The tabs display without any problem on your OnePlus 5. This is once of the devices was tested ! and this is true as well on all other similar modern devices with ~5 inch display, 1080p-compatible, and hi-DPI. It was tested as well on smaller screens (<4 inch, and resolution about 700x400 px) and there's no problem at all ! — Verdy_p (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the phone can be tilted and it can be read that way. Its still a crappy way to do it though because all the pages are essentially bullet points. So its endlessly quick scrolling because the amount of screen space between the bottom and the navigation bar is so little. It can be done I guess, but its sub optimum and really doesn't work that well at all. Once again, its not like I didn't think of that. A person shouldn't have to stand on their head, twist their arm, and put their phone in a certain position for the pages to be readable. Plus, its a hell of a lot of scrolling down. That doesn't have the benefit of the category tabs to make the scrolling easier.
As far as the top paragraph goes. If you didn't write it, who cares if it gets changed? I'm sick of saying that's the point in this damn wiki, but I will again. CONTENT GETS CHANGED AND IMPROVED OVER TIME. Jesus. Maybe its good for you and it worked at the time when they created it, but there's something about it that I see with my knowledge of English, grammar, and web design that you don't. If I write something on here and someone improves it, I don't revert them and then spend three weeks capitulating about it like you have and you didn't write the crap. I never said the categories are arbitrary. I said they are wrong. The articles are not even related to each except in vague terms, the categories don't even share the same words as the article titles, literally none of the GPS in the review section even have GLONASS features. Plus, there's absolutely zero point in having an introductory paragraph for those things. If someone is at the point that they are uploading GPS Trace logs, they already know they can contribute to OpenStreetMap that way. They don't need a gitchy intro about how they can. There's already plenty of beginners guides. The top paragraph should summarize the content of the articles it is above. That's its point. It doesn't do that. It just goes straight into a nonsensical tutorial about how often points are recorded and there is no clear reason why it is there. Because its not connected to anything. Its like someone cut it out of an actual random article.
Then its a left to right tab system because that is how we read. So think about it, going from record->convert->modify tracelog-> upload-> accuracy -> Reviews, makes absolutely no sense at all. First your recording a trace log, than your going to read device reviews? You wouldn't be reviewing GPS systems if you already have one to record trace logs freak sake. Plus, what are you reviewing? Because going by the order and naming of the categories, it would seem your reviewing something to do with the trace logs you created and uploaded. Not GPS devices. Its pretty unclear. I don't see how any of that makes sense or is good for the average reader. I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back or anything, but I have a degree in Sociology. I graduated with an 3.9. I took a lot of English classes in the process and have also taken classes on computer science, web design, using word, designing spreadsheets in Excel and presentations Powerpoint. A lot of that and the good grades I earned came from knowing about your audience and how to design things like documents, spreadsheets, and Powerpoints to understand your audience, be neutral and get your point across. Sociology was also a lot about that to. So I know what I'm talking about and what I am doing here. While I don't devalue what the other people did, there's clearly a better way to go about it. You don't know everything. So just because you don't see it, doesn't mean there isn't one.
Like I said before, you want to keep things there just because you rather keep it how it was, even if its crap and partly broken. I rather change it to work better, make more sense, and appeal to more people. Its ridiculous I have to even defend that or sit here for three weeks and explain myself repeatedly to you over and over. Just so I can do a basic edit. Once again, its not your page. Your not the boss. You don't run the place. Anyone can edit things how they want and my edits are clearly better. So just concede already and leave me alone so I can improve it. Otherwise, you have a week. I'm done debating it with you though or defending myself against the same wrong crap you continue to bring up repeatedly even though its been proven false multiple times. Your obviously in the wrong and have no leg to stand on. So just give it up. I'm not doing this crap with you again though. Next time, its on you to explain your self clearly, with facts, or I will just repeatedly put back the things you revert and report you to a mod like I said, because I'm not playing your dumb games or letting you control what pages I edit or how. Either have a good argument next time and revert me for an actually valid reason, based on the rules instead of your personal opinions and that you like green, or don't do it in the first place. Its pretty simple. Adamant1 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no personal opinion, just evidence that what you affirm is just false. You've not proven any "fact" at all. And you have spammed my talk page with repeated personal insults, and you continue here (You've visibly not learnt anything in your English or Sociology lessons to apply in social life). Game over ! An admin will come to limit your interactions and recall you to respect people and not insult them or destroy their past work completely because you think there may be a problem (that is still not demonstrated at all). This is not "my" page but the page resultiungfrom various contributors. An old page is not necessarily bad. These basic introduction pages explain things that are still perfectly applicable today. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: the "Press Portal" page is one where I fixed it because it really broke on narrow devices. This is a proof that I know what I'm speaking about and you don't need to "teach" that to me. And a proof that I respect mobile users (and I've made many fixes oin this wiki to support them). But not by complicating life of editors, or deleting what they did or complicating the maintenance by degroumping items and duplicating contents that should be maintained identically in a single place as it is reused on several pages. You constantly ignore that. I MUCH better care what people did on this wiki than what you do. I'm just there to help them have their content reusable, viewable and translatable, without too many complex details spread everywhere and without needing multiple editings for the same thing.
I used an emulation of the "flex" layout to do that (this is not really the HTML5 flex, but it gives the same result (while being compatible with older non-HTML5 browsers). A flex-like design occurs in various pages where I've used the multicolumn layout (this is similar to flex except that items are arranged vertically and wrap into columns when they fit, while "flex" arranges items horizontally and wrap as needed vertically: the multicolumn is good as long as the columns are not too high and can be read without having to scroll up to continue reading the next column). The "flex" layout is better when items to arrange horizontally have relatively stable width and sufficiently narrow (less than ~300px each one), because it keeps the normal reading order. — Verdy_p (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(..snipped repeated insults from Adamant..)

P.S. Since your so willing to talk to the mods to censor things you don't like, are so much more knowledgeable about things than everyone else like you claim, and agree with me that mobile support sucks on here, why don't you talk to them about it and have the system updated? It would obviously improve things and lessen the amount of pointless arguments on here. Also, if you don't think a wiki is an iterative thing, where pages are improved and updated, what is it then in your opinion? What's the point in even having it in the first place if people other than you can't change or update pages how they see fit? Is it just for you to add a bunch of translation articles and maintain pages with 12 year old information? Because it seems like that's what you think. Further, Are you at least willing to admit you might have blind spots or lack knowledge in certain areas that could potentially cause you to not see improvements or problems with articles where other people might see them? In other words, do you consider yourself all knowing and all seeing? I think those are all perfectly reasonable questions. Also, if your going to block me on your talk page and not respond to me anymore, don't revert my edits anymore either ok? Thanks ;) Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I can perfectly mod the personal insults you've continuously overused everywhere. This has killed all validty to your pseudo argumentation. Stop that! You've falsely claimed that I did not reply to you, and just made this talk a non-sense. No one would accept the way you treat people, and the repeated lies you did. — Verdy_p (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


Verdy_P, Do me a favor, and don't screw with my comments on public forums. Its not your place to do if your feelings are hurt or not. Its not your job to moderate things. There's actual moderators who's job it is to do that kind of thing if need be. Otherwise your just censoring me and throwing out valid points along with what you take offense to. I had enough respect for your opinion even though I don't agree with it to not do that. Especially that whole thing about my college education being trash that you threw in my face. Plus, every thing your claiming was an insult in my last comment was just repeating back to you the same stuff you accused me of, like not having respect for editors. Except unlike you, I actually provided real world examples to back it up with. You should show me the same respect in return and you should respect that there is moderator to censor things when they need to be. And how ever you want to justify it in your head, its still censorship. I don't know what the rule is here, but Wikipedia has pretty strict rules about not modifying other peoples comments without asking them first, even on a personal talk page and if they are uncouth. Even if there is no rule about it here, its just about having a basic level of respect for other people. Plus it can potentially cause a chilling effect. Plus, it makes the conversation potentially seem one sided or like I am being more hostile than I am to readers that might come along because it gets rid of the context. Not to mention, it makes it so moderators can't read the full conversation if they have to over a dispute or something. Plus, potentially anyone can do it, if there is an insult or not. I could choose to do it to you by just picking a random word and saying I was offended by it. There's literally no standard of what does and doesn't qualify. Since it is based solely on if my feelings are hurt or not. Which isn't a good standard for anything here, only adds to a hostile environment, and is why I have repeatedly said to stick to the facts and the rules. It keeps things fair for everyone that way and we avoid a lot of issues that way. Over all, its pretty obvious that editing out others comments are a bad thing to do. Feelings or not. Even I know that. Your the one that suppose to have these expertise and respect for editors. If so, your really not doing a good job of it. So don't edit other peoples comments again, especially mine. I don't care if you don't like them or not. I didn't give you permission to and I'm not doing it to you. So just don't do it again. Id say the same thing to someone else if they were doing it to you. Thanks ;)
Instead of getting rid of everything you don't like, why don't you act like an adult about it instead and just point out what the specific insult is that you don't like and explain to me why it's an insult. Or just stop accusing me of things and insulting me. Then I won't throw your own words back at you anymore. That seems pretty basic to me. Maybe this whole insult thing is just a cultural difference to and either you or I are just not getting it or something. Like I've said, I'm willing to admit and apologize if I said something insulting. I just don't see how me repeating back to you exactly what you to me is doing that. Really, I think your just using the whole "oh your insulting me blah blah blah" thing as an excuse at this point to doge my questions and to deflect from the places where you are wrong. Why not just answer my questions instead and admit you were wrong about a few things? It happens. Then we can all get on with life and go back to deciding what to do about the pages. What's so difficult about that? Its like you rather just run this whole thing into the ground if it means you don't have to compromise or admit you were wrong about something. Also, from now on if you reply on here be specific and use specific examples like I have been doing. Otherwise, this is going to continue being unproductive. For example, what specifically was a pseudo argument and what specifically did I lie about? I've backed everything I have said here and else where about the pages and your behavior with actual examples, repeatedly. I can go line by line quoting both you, me, and asseral46, again to back up everything I have said and every claim I have made about how your dealing with this if you want me to though. I really don't mind. Even though you have ignored it up until this point, I don't mind spinning the wheels, wasting time, and being ignored more. Or we could just cut with the none sense, side stuff, and get back to the discussion about the page like I repeatedly keep asking you to do. At this point I'm wondering if you even the read the comments in the first place or just ignoring them and having canned answered for everything. But whatever you want to do, boss. Oh no, don't get rid of my comment for that ;)

New version of this page needed?

It's clear that both @Verdy_p and @Adamant1 won't agree on what is the best solution for the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Recording_GPS_tracks page. Personally, I think that there's merit in both approaches - no, the tabs don't work on mobile, but that's not the biggest issue; the real problem is that the content is horribly outdated. Any wiki requires collaboration (which simply isn't happening here), and it doesn't allow different parallel ideas to develop to see which one works best. What I'd suggest instead is that @Adamant1 creates a new set of replacement pages without tabs elsewhere - perhaps under their user area like I did with e.g. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SomeoneElse/Ubuntu_1804_tileserver_load , or perhaps using github pages like http://switch2osm.github.io/ / https://github.com/switch2osm/switch2osm.github.io . A "new version" would start from where people are most likely to start now - with a phone, not a dedicated GPS, and with apps that allow data recording (i.e. POIs as well as tracks). When that's done, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Recording_GPS_tracks is allowed to wither into irrelevance (like the https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Creating_your_own_tiles page did). --SomeoneElse (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I still want toi see that "tabs" don't work on mobiles, which is completely opposed to what I see (even on small 700x400 screens which are constantly used in landscape mode to read everything in this wiki, not just this page). It's true that it's difficult to fit in a ~400px wide screen, but this is true of any wiki (including Wikipedia) which requires about 640px at least and a radical change of layout using the "mobile" view of the wiki (which is partly implemented here).
Butr the tabs in question work perfectly (provided there are not too many) and texts in each tab also wrap correctly. And I've seen absolutely no evidence that they were broekn or not working on various small devices (or even on very large SmartTV, with their builtin browser, generally based on Android, or old versions of Embedded Opera).
I don't think we can even design these pages to be readable or even smaller devices not intended to read long articles with lots of links (such as smartwatches: who would read such texts with a so small size, very small fonts, and lot of difficulties to click any link or just browse down the content? These devices are just used to present short events or facts or notifications, or small messaging systems, or at best a single photo, no more than ~100 characters), or broadcast some audio to Bluetooth headsets (this wiki has almost no audio).
Tabs are a way to create some navigation menu at top for related pages. This is independant of the fact that some contents may need to have its content updated, but these cointents are still valid and generic enough to cover most frequent cases that have not changed at all (there are jsut a few additional details to give, or possibly new trechnical means or tools or guides to perform or explain what is exposed there). Breaking the navigation between those related pages whose content was coherent (ans is still coherent today) will not solve anything, it just makes things worse as all the difficulty in a wiki is to allow visitors to find their ways across pages, and more easily interlink them correctly, notably when the contents in questions are quite generic terms and difficult to use for plain text search. These are just introductory pages providing more links where needed. These pages are still hghly referenced, and also need synchronization across translations.
(replying to unsigned comment by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Verdy_p ) Re "tabs don't work on mobile" - On a Samsung S4 (a reasonable "lowest common denominator")in Google Chrome, only 4 tabs and "Accura" are displayed. You need to scroll left to see the "Review" tab, and when you do text reflow is broken because page width > screen width. On a Nokia 6.1 (brand new, Android 8.1) in Firefox, the "Reviews" tab is truncated and text reflow is still broken. --SomeoneElse (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recording_GPS_tracks&oldid=1613022"