Skip to content
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

Unit id #34

Open
FLO-2DKaren opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 10 comments
Open

Unit id #34

FLO-2DKaren opened this issue Nov 1, 2023 · 10 comments
Labels
future Future development

Comments

@FLO-2DKaren
Copy link
Collaborator

Units Let's consider how to add Unit identifier to the maps or legends. Like ft or m for depth or what ever units specific energy comes in.

@rpachaly
Copy link
Collaborator

rpachaly commented Nov 1, 2023

This gave me an idea. What do you think about adding a tab called "Summary" where we add all the project relevant variables? Like:

Units:
Build n°:
Grid Size:
N° of elements:
Simulation type:
Simulation date:

We could also use this tab to add some settings to MapCrafter like ID labels for scenarios or anything like that.

@FLO-2DKaren
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes a great idea for sure. Can you write that data to a geopackage table called summary? That way you don't lose it when you close MapCrafter or the project.. That data could also be added to the map description table for one of the mapping layouts. The one with the large description box.

@rpachaly
Copy link
Collaborator

rpachaly commented Nov 1, 2023

Can you write that data to a geopackage table called summary? That way you don't lose it when you close MapCrafter or the project.

I'm not an expert of using geopackage (yet). But I will figure this out and let you know.

That data could also be added to the map description table for one of the mapping layouts. The one with the large description box.

Very good idea. I'll code this.

@FLO-2DKaren
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Cool I think packaging the vector and table data in a geopackage would be faster and less data than shapefiles. Plus you only have one file for a lot of data.

@rpachaly
Copy link
Collaborator

rpachaly commented Nov 1, 2023

Cool I think packaging the vector and table data in a geopackage would be faster and less data than shapefiles. Plus you only have one file for a lot of data.

I agree. But how the geopackage deal with rasters? This is my concern.

@FLO-2DKaren
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I think it only vector and table data can be used in geopackage. The rest would be raster data.

The only other way to speed things up would probably be to use lazy load and the mesh tools. The mesh tools act like rasters. But the mesh tools are kind of limited in that I'm not sure how you publish them to a map layout with visible layers because you can't see all of the groups in the mesh.

@rpachaly
Copy link
Collaborator

rpachaly commented Nov 2, 2023

We can use rasters on the geopackage. Check this out MapCrafter.zip. But I need to figure out a way to keep track of the groups and symbology.

I think it is better to focus on the other issues/bugs right now and add the geopackage in a future version.

@FLO-2DKaren
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Oh that's cool!!! I agree to wait on it. I'm looking into style-db manager. I think we can add a project with our own styles to the style database. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

@rpachaly
Copy link
Collaborator

rpachaly commented Nov 2, 2023

Oh that's cool!!! I agree to wait on it. I'm looking into style-db manager. I think we can add a project with our own styles to the style database. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.

That's a good idea! I've never worked with the style database, but it shouldn't be difficult to figure out.

@FLO-2DKaren
Copy link
Collaborator Author

You can save the style to the gpkg tables and default that style to a specific layer. Check this video out at 8:30 time frame
https://youtu.be/2N5ZyFlbqSQ?feature=shared&t=510

@FLO-2DKaren FLO-2DKaren added the future Future development label Nov 2, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
future Future development
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants