Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of IrcDiscussion

Aug 10, 2007, 5:52:35 AM (17 years ago)



  • IrcDiscussion

    v1 v1  
     2<mloskot> We may have to deal with:
     3<mloskot> - ungroupped placemarks (no containers in KML file)
     4<mloskot> - grouped in flat structure (no nested containers)
     5<mloskot> - grouped in tree structure (nested containers: folders and documents)
     6<mloskot> I believe, all these 3 cases have to be handled differently regarding creation of layers
     7<mloskot> 1) Layers created according to geometry types
     8<D|dge> a Placemark is always contained by a Document or Folder
     9<mloskot> Ah, so 1st and 2nd are the same
     10<mloskot> I forgot
     11<mloskot> So, we have 2 cases
     12<mloskot> flat or tree
     13<D|dge> yes
     14<mloskot> The case with tree needs special treatment
     15<D|dge> right
     16<mloskot> Let's see:
     17<mloskot> Case 1: All placemarks are of the same type in Folder 1
     18<mloskot> Case 2: Folder 1 stores placemarks of type of point and polygon
     19<mloskot> The 1st one is simple: we have one layer
     20<mloskot> The 2nd case is complicated
     21<mloskot> We know that we *have to* group placemarks according type of geometry
     22<mloskot> But what about folder?
     23<mloskot> ie. if we have Folder 1 (points and lines), Folder 2 (points and polygons), Folder 3 (points, lines, plolygons)
     24<D|dge> Folder 1.1 points
     25<D|dge> Folder 1.2 lines
     26<D|dge> ...
     27<D|dge> or "Folder 1 - points" -> points
     28<D|dge> put the contenttype in the name
     29<mloskot> Right, that sounds like a good combination of groupping levels
     30<mloskot> Level 1: geometry type:
     31<mloskot> Level 2: container
     32<mloskot> What about nested containers?
     33<mloskot> Do we extend Level 2 to nested levels
     34<D|dge> hm
     35<mloskot> where I consider "nested level" as point in which  we create new layer
     36<mloskot> ie.
     37<mloskot> Folder 1
     38<mloskot> - Folder 1.1
     39<mloskot> - Folder 1.2
     40<mloskot> - Folder 1.2.1
     41<mloskot> - Folder
     42<mloskot> here, we may have to create even 5 layers
     43<mloskot> :-)
     44<mloskot> For instance:
     45<mloskot> layer:
     46<mloskot> folder_1.shp - all placemarks stored directly under Folder 1
     47<mloskot> folder_1_1.shp - all placemarks stored directly under Folder 1.1
     48<mloskot> folder_1_2.shp -  placemarks from  Folder 1.2
     49<mloskot> etc.
     50<D|dge> yes
     51<mloskot> I assume we can have to deal with something like this:
     52<mloskot> Folder 1
     53<mloskot> - Placemark 1
     54<mloskot> - Placemark 2
     55<mloskot> - Placemark 3
     56<mloskot> - Folder 1.1
     57<mloskot> -- Placemark 1
     58<mloskot> -- Placemark 2
     59<mloskot> Folder 2
     60<D|dge> right
     61<mloskot> etc
     62<D|dge> Folder 1 -> Germany
     63<D|dge> Placemark 1 -> Border
     64<D|dge> Folder 1.1 -> Bavaria
     65<D|dge> Placemark 1 Border
     66<D|dge> Placemark 2 -> Cities
     67<D|dge> that would be 2 Files/Layers
     68<D|dge> Folder 1 with Name Germany
     69<D|dge> and Content Border
     70<D|dge> Folder 1.1 with Name: Germany | Bavaria
     71<D|dge> and Content Border and Cities
     72<mloskot> Number of layers = number of geometry types
     73<mloskot> Number of layers does not depend on number of containers
     74<mloskot> but only on number of geom types
     75<mloskot> Containers only affect groupping scheme
     76<mloskot> Am I correct?
     77<D|dge> no
     78<D|dge> in my example the Borders are Linestrings
     79<D|dge> but they would be in two Layers
     80<D|dge> with spliting the geometrie types
     81<mloskot> ah, you're perfectly right
     82<D|dge> my example would do:
     83<mloskot> my mistake
     84<D|dge> Folder 1.1 with Name: Germany | Bavaria (linestring)
     85<D|dge> Folder 1.1 with Name: Germany | Bavaria (point)
     86<D|dge> so it would be three files/layers
     87<mloskot> roughly, number of layers = N folders  x  N types