Hi Nyall "Ok, we've hit a stalemate then. I was hoping to drop the additional algorithms..." please remove. Try and error without a good statistic or collection of maps where these options can do the difference IMHO is not strong enough respect cleaning code and void bug fixing.
Luigi Pirelli ************************************************************************************************** * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir * Book: Mastering QGIS3 - 3rd Edition <https://www.packtpub.com/eu/application-development/mastering-geospatial-development-qgis-3x-third-edition> * Hire a team: http://www.qcooperative.net ************************************************************************************************** On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 06:03, Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 17:33, Carlo A. Bertelli (Charta s.r.l.) > <carlo.berte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Yes, if you consider trial and error a mindful method, I "use" label > placement algorithms when preparing a cartographic layout for printing. > > I mainly work on geographic data and web output, so it's not frequent > and I follow the easy and dumb way: I swap algorithms, hoping for a result > that solves cluttering in the worst spots, until it fits – usually it fits > here and it's out of order elsewhere... > > I generally criticise this approach, but when looking for a good > appearance, it seems bearable. Yes, I would need some more information to > do a better work. As already said, I think this is a cartographic issue > that can get more benefits by a better GIS approach. Label positioning is > not "substantial" but can exploit proper data. Say population for a > populated place. Using these algorithms on top of geometric-only data gives > little more than casual results. > > I had the opportunity to weight the theory behind these methods starting > from the obituary of Mitchell Jay Feigenbaum by Maurizio Codogno on > ilPost.it that referenced the New York Times: > https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/science/mitchell-feigenbaum-dead.html. > Looking to further developments, I think there is not a "best" algorithm, > but that it's useful to keep alternatives. I doubt the algorithms could > really work well without an interface that can reach useful data, but > > Ok, we've hit a stalemate then. I was hoping to drop the additional > algorithms to allow some desirable new features like avoiding > duplicate text labels within xxx mm of others (e.g. avoiding too many > labels for dual-carriage highways), and use that some logic to start > implementing things like automatically abbreviated label text when the > full text cannot be placed. But, if we keep all the existing > algorithms, it basically means this logic has to be written multiple > times. Ouch! > > > I also think that keeping them available without any special interface > could keep them in a place that is not really influenced by the frequent > enhancements of QGIS. > > Sounds great in theory, but the labeling code structure and logic > doesn't work that allow that. > > Nyall > > > > > c > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 8:31 AM Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 16:28, Carlo A. Bertelli (Charta s.r.l.) > >> <carlo.berte...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Label placement took a lot of time and efforts in the past and this > is the outcome. > >> > It's true, there is no real need for it while on screen, but it could > be very useful in Layout. The problem is similar to generalisation, you > need proper data to support label placement. Losing the relationship with > real geographic objects, when exporting the layout in SVG or postscript, > label placement takes time and needs cartographic expertise while changing > the algorithm in Layout mode can help a lot. > >> > >> So - just to confirm -- you are actively changing that setting, and > >> seeing useful results from different methods? If so, which do you use? > >> Which give the best results? What's the trade off between them? > >> > >> Nyall > >> > >> > >> > Keeping several algorithms in Layout could ease code maintenance > while keeping all the advantages. > >> > On the other hand, this needs some efforts on documentation and > Anita's touch is really welcome here. Algorithms need reference but also a > plain explanation in something that resembles a book. Someone developed a > publishing business out of a GIS program... maybe this is too much and has > already been done, but... > >> > My two eurocents. > >> > c > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 2:00 AM Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 at 12:40, Nyall Dawson <nyall.daw...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Hey lists > >> >> > > >> >> > This was first discussed back in 2016 (see > >> >> > > http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/Removal-of-labeling-search-methods-td5262743.html > ), > >> >> > but would anyone object if the different labeling solution > algorithms > >> >> > eg "chain" / "pop music" / "falp" / etc were dropped, and we just > >> >> > leave the existing default (chain)? > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't think ANYONE knows what these mean, and it's a heck of a > lot > >> >> > of code (which needs fixes) to cart around for no compelling reason > >> >> > that I can see. > >> >> > > >> >> > I have no particular preference to any of the methods, so would > >> >> > happily accept a different default if anyone out there can point to > >> >> > which method is best! > >> >> > > >> >> > Googling pop music / tabu / chain only gives a handful of results > >> >> > relating to QGIS labeling engine. And googling for "falp" sounds > like > >> >> > something that would get you flagged on your company's firewall. > >> >> > > >> >> > Does ANYONE understand or change this setting? Or would object to > its > >> >> > complete removal? > >> >> > >> >> PR at https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/30960 > >> >> > >> >> Last chance to save this setting! > >> >> > >> >> Nyall > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> QGIS-Developer mailing list > >> >> qgis-develo...@lists.osgeo.org > >> >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > >> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > Carlo A. Bertelli > >> > Charta servizi e sistemi per il territorio e la storia ambientale > srl > >> > Dipendenze del palazzo Doria, > >> > vc. alla Chiesa della Maddalena 9/2 16124 Genova > (Italy) > >> > tel./fax +39(0)10 2475439 +39 0108566195 mobile:+39 393 > 1590711 > >> > e-mail: berte...@chartasrl.eu http://www.chartasrl.eu > >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Carlo A. Bertelli > > Charta servizi e sistemi per il territorio e la storia ambientale srl > > Dipendenze del palazzo Doria, > > vc. alla Chiesa della Maddalena 9/2 16124 Genova (Italy) > > tel./fax +39(0)10 2475439 +39 0108566195 mobile:+39 393 > 1590711 > > e-mail: berte...@chartasrl.eu http://www.chartasrl.eu > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > QGIS-Developer mailing list > qgis-develo...@lists.osgeo.org > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
_______________________________________________ Qgis-user mailing list Qgis-user@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user