Hi Joddy, I think "prioritaziation" from what I have seen by examining this "beast" class LabelCacheImpl (to be honest it is difficult to fully undestand it) works by performing an initial ordering on the label items before paint process occurs. Therefore labels with higher priority will be checked first for appropriate positioning during the paint process that follows depending on textSymbolizer options like "maxDisplacement", "fontShrinkSizeMin" etc.
Now about the stable labelling it is difficult to say. Note that "fontShrinkSizeMin" works only for polygonal features and besides these 2 mentioned options there are numerous others that affect the paint behavior like "goodnessOfFit", "polygonAlign" and so on. Considering fixed values for all other options my perception is that during zoom out "fontShrinkSizeMin" will definetally be preferred if we want labels not to dissapear and just that. During zoom in it really depends on the case. For example if there are other big size label at or near the centroid position "maxDisplacement" seems preferable. But zoom in/out is part of the picture. There other numerous other situations. The idea behind the introductions of fontShrinkSizeMin was to handle special cases of small area polygons where at a fixed scale the default symbolizer font size caused the label not to be rendered. "maxDisplacement" option wouldn't help at all. About the idea you propose I did not fully undestand it. What do you mean by "by optimizing how far the centroid of the label is from its preferred location"? Do you suggest another vendor option that would control which algorithm will apply first or just to modify internal LabelCacheImpl implementation so that we check all possible combinations of label positioning and finally select the one closest to the centroid (this can be really complicated in terms of implementation)? Στις Δευ, 23 Δεκ 2019 στις 4:37 μ.μ., ο/η Jody Garnett < jody.garn...@gmail.com> έγραψε: > I have read this carefully, and any feedback I provided is basically a > judgement call on what makes sense to me. I am doing my best to respect the > person doing the work get's to make those judgement calls :) > > I understand the three approaches you presented, I wonder what would cause > the least change as a map zoom's in and out (the most stable labeling)? > > Idea: There may be a way to prioritize "both" these terms together - by > optimizing how far the centroid of the label is from its preferred > location. Adjusting size can bring the centroid closer, adjusting > displacement can move the centroid further away. > > Question: I feel like I am missing "priority" from the above conversation. > I would assume that labels with a higher priority get their full size / > preferred location before this tradeoff between fontShrinkSizeMin vs > maxDisplacement occurs (between labels of the same priority). But this is > only assumption, are you considering priority here? > > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 23:09, Nikolaos Pringouris <nprig...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> With the introduction of the fontShrinkSizeMin vendor option the process >> of determining the labelling of the feature in case both fontShrinkSizeMin >> and maxDisplacement options are defined has as follows: >> First the fontShrinkSizeMin algorith is applied trying to shrink and >> place the label and if this does not succeed then maxDisplacement >> iterations take place using the initially defined font size of the label. >> I would like opinions whether do you consider this to be a good attitude. >> On the one hand it seems rational that when shrinking is enabled on a label >> we first check that trying to place the label and if no success then go for >> the solution of maxDisplacement. >> (still we must make it explicit in the user docs since there is no >> reference now) >> >> Alternatives would be to: >> 1. 'interleave" the two processes (that is for each shrink size to apply >> all possible displacements) >> 2. 'interleave" the two processes in the reverse order of what is >> mentioned above ( that is for each displacement step check all shrink sizes) >> 3 apply first maxDisplacement and after fontShrinkSizeMin (I am not so >> positive to that I must admit) >> >> IMHO there is no perfect choice since depending on the situation somebody >> may have different requirements during rendering (i.e. (a) I may want to >> place labels as near as possible to their anchor points witihin polygons >> but not with reduced size, or (b) I have a long polygon I want just to >> place its label somewhere labels so check with displacement first but if >> font size is too big then resort to shrinking after) >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GeoTools-Devel mailing list >> GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel >> >
_______________________________________________ GeoTools-Devel mailing list GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
