#72 closed enhancement (fixed)
Make GPX tracks editable
| Reported by: | anonymous | Owned by: | imi |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Core | Version: | |
| Keywords: | editing gpx, gpx upload | Cc: | Marcus@… |
Description
I often have errors in GPX tracks that I want to edit out before using/uploading them. Typically this is at the beginning where the signal hasn't settled down yet or when the GPS unit lost the satellite in between and reports rubbish. Currently I do this by editing the GPX file manually in a text editor. It would be much nicer if I could do this in JOSM. I don't really need much, it would be enough if I could delete groups of trackpoints marked with a rectangle or similar.
Attachments (0)
Change History (11)
follow-up: 7 comment:1 by , 19 years ago
comment:2 by , 19 years ago
| Priority: | major → minor |
|---|
as there is a work-around and JOSM isn't really a GPX editor but a map editor, I depriorize this. Feel free to disagree (and revert)
comment:3 by , 18 years ago
| Priority: | minor → major |
|---|
When I try to convert it to a layer I get a warning message saying
it is "considered harmful."
Word processing programs let you crop photos. Am I allowed to bump it
to major?
comment:4 by , 18 years ago
Would be a nice feature to edit GPX tracks.
- to protect privacy (e.g. remove start and ends of tracks)
- remove invalid GPS log data
comment:5 by , 18 years ago
| Cc: | added |
|---|
Removig bad data (start of track, after tunnels, ...) would be a very nice feature but definately not a "major"-issue.
comment:6 by , 18 years ago
To combine several issues - 'upload GPX' and this, it would be nice to be able to load GPX files, and then upload them, specifying one or more points with a radius which to not upload GPX points.
So you pick a spot 200m from your house/place of work/..., and set the radius to 500m, and nobody can find your house from your uploaded tracks.
comment:7 by , 18 years ago
Replying to imi:
until this is implemented straigt forward, you can use the following work around:
- convert to OSM layer
- edit as you like
- export to GPX file
The workaround does not work. Layer saved as GPX file does not contain any timings. OSM server rejects such a track.
comment:9 by , 17 years ago
http://www.salewroughtiron.cn installing metal stair rails Interior stair handrail installing metal stair rails Interior stair handrail exterior baluster Glass wood stainless wrought CONTEMPORARY designs stairways aluminum modern log banister DECK outdoor price posts vinyl curved rails http://www.china-made-door.com.cn door gate http://www.beijing-door.cn wrought CONTEMPORARY designs stairways installing metal stair rails Interior stair handrail exterior baluster Glass wood stainless wrought CONTEMPORARY designs stairways aluminum modern log banister DECK outdoor price posts vinyl curved rails http://www.hebei-railings.cn aluminum modern log banister DECK outdoor price installing metal stair rails Interior stair handrail exterior baluster Glass wood stainless wrought CONTEMPORARY designs stairways aluminum modern log banister DECK outdoor price posts vinyl curved rails posts vinyl curved rails
comment:10 by , 17 years ago
| Component: | unspecified → Core |
|---|
comment:11 by , 17 years ago
| Keywords: | editing gpx gpx upload added |
|---|---|
| Resolution: | → fixed |
| Status: | new → closed |
As mentioned before, JOSM is and should be about editing OSM data on top of GPX track data, not less, but not more either. Use powerful but clearly limited tools. This is good [Unix|GNU] philosophy. Since you already have tools with better control (hight profile, track segment selection, etc.) at hand, you should use them. Give Prune at try and enjoy, so you'll know what I mean very soon.
Proposal for direct upload of GPX tracks to OSM is a completely different thing. But there is a
DirectUpload plug-in available
I've seen it in plug-in preferences of JOSM revision 1075 (latest to date). Please test this one and open a new ticket dedicated to that plug-in, if it fails for you (somewhat likely, since it's version 0.1).
Something left out? Don't think so.



until this is implemented straigt forward, you can use the following work around: