You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently we change the camera position such that a route fits into the window whenever a route request succeeds. However, right now there are two cases coming to my mind where this is not ideal:
We already did an estimation of the bounding box from the given url points and updating the camera position creates a little flickering effect even though the route would be entirely visible anyway
We already updated the map bounds for the first /route request, but when the second /route request (that includes alternative routes) succeeds we update the map bounds again. This is especially annoying when the alternative routes take some time and the user already started zooming/panning the map. E.g. load this URL, pan the map and you will see it jumps back at some point: http://localhost:3000/?point=48.988641%2C7.180233&point=50.856244%2C12.297411&profile=foot&layer=OpenStreetMap
Nothing major, but keeping this as a reminder here.
Currently we change the camera position such that a route fits into the window whenever a route request succeeds. However, right now there are two cases coming to my mind where this is not ideal:
We already did an estimation of the bounding box from the given url points and updating the camera position creates a little flickering effect even though the route would be entirely visible anyway
We already updated the map bounds for the first /route request, but when the second /route request (that includes alternative routes) succeeds we update the map bounds again. This is especially annoying when the alternative routes take some time and the user already started zooming/panning the map. E.g. load this URL, pan the map and you will see it jumps back at some point: http://localhost:3000/?point=48.988641%2C7.180233&point=50.856244%2C12.297411&profile=foot&layer=OpenStreetMap
Nothing major, but keeping this as a reminder here.
Related to #306.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: