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
"What street does ... belong to?" quest "Tap road on map" is unreliable #3797
Comments
I can confirm it happened several times in last few days to me too - I didn't yet report it because I was running my own modified fork of v40.1 and it happens only sometimes, so I wasn't yet able to reproduce it in upstream vanilla version. It didn't happen to me in 39.0 and before. (I've also saved video and logcat of that time if that's interesting, but logcat does not seem to have SC-related messages for that timeframe that I can see?) |
FYI, if you enable developer settings in your phone, there is a setting to show touches, which makes it more obvious what is happening in a screen recording like this. I turned it on and decided to keep it on; it's also helpful for knowing whether my touch is registering when I'm using "touchscreen-compatible" gloves. |
Ah... this is because querying by bbox on the map (which the tap does) now works the same way as querying from OSM API. So, if the tap is not close to a node of the way, it won't return anything... :-| |
So, workaround is to drastically increase the radius around the tap position from 5m to 50m for calculating the bounding box to fetch. This will not solve the issue for all cases, e.g. for very long roads with very few nodes. |
"What street does ... belong to?" quest does not always recognise when I tap on a road. I've not been able to understand under what circumstances the tap is recognised.
How to Reproduce
Screen recording
Notice there are 3 taps in total, 2 failed taps, 1 final successful tap
Versions affected
I've tested versions 40.1 and 40.2 on a physical device.
4cf48d2 on an emulated device (screen recording above).
I don't recall this issue happening when using 40.0, however I couldn't confirm this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: