> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:20 PM, Berthold Stoeger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sunday, 24 February 2019 20:40:28 CET Dirk Hohndel wrote: > >> The issue with not pruning unreferenced dive sites is that over time you >> might accrue a lot of garbage in your dive file. E.g., whenever you dive >> with a Garmin Descent or similar dive computer (there are none right now) >> that store GPS data, that creates a new dive site. Typically I then switch >> to the existing one if I have been at this site before, which creates an >> unreferenced site. Having all of those accumulate over time might be >> annoying. > > One could have a "prune unused dive sites" button. And for GPS-enabled dive > computer users an "auto-prune unused dive sites" option.
You know how much I love new options and more buttons. But you are of course correct in principle :-) > 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? /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
