#3206 closed defect (fixed)
Could not hide data-layer in josm v1917
Reported by: | Owned by: | ||
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | |
Component: | Core | Version: | latest |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
When I try to hide the data layer the icon changes in the layer list, but the data layer is still present in the main window. The hide/unhide function works fine with a wms or the check layer.
josm: 1917
OS: debian/sid amd64
java: sun java 1.6.0
Cheers Andreas
Attachments (0)
Change History (4)
follow-up: 2 comment:1 by , 16 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → needinfo |
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
Hi Gubaer
I have checked it with a clean josm start, an only one download. Behavior is still present.
But now I noticed the active layer stuff in the layers box, for the first time. For me it seems, that it's no more possible to hide the active layer. When the layer becomes inactive, it's possible to hide.
I myself used the layer hiding feature when using wms layers. For instance when i would like to look on the picture, if there is really a bridge or something else. Im sure with yesterdays version it was possible to hide the active layer (if these feature where already there?).
Cheers Andreas
Replying to Gubaer:
Ary you sure you don't have two data layers with the same data by chance? This can easily happen if you do a download twice and have "download to new layer" checked. Then, when you hide one layer, the other one appears. To you this coud look as if the former layer wasn't hidden at all.
Let me know if this isn't the case.
follow-up: 4 comment:3 by , 16 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | needinfo → closed |
Ouch, you're right, I've forgotten to check of the active layers visibility when painting.
Should be fixed in r1918.
Ary you sure you don't have two data layers with the same data by chance? This can easily happen if you do a download twice and have "download to new layer" checked. Then, when you hide one layer, the other one appears. To you this coud look as if the former layer wasn't hidden at all.
Let me know if this isn't the case.