Le lundi 22 avril 2013 à 14:58 +0200, Moritz Lennert a écrit : > On 22/04/13 14:41, Vincent Bain wrote: > > Thank you Moritz, > > > >> - I'm not sure I like the difference in size of cat values between > >> layers. It gives the idea that there is one important and two secondary > >> layers. > > > > Sorry, I don't understand. Cats values are all the same font size in the > > drawing (I turned "1" values to sth else, perhaps an optical illusion) > > Sorry, I was confused by your "id". I'm not sure that this id is helpful > in your drawing as most users will never be confronted to id's, only to > cat values. I think making them this prominent in the drawing might > cause more confusion than help in understanding.
I agree with you that most users won't feel concerned by the feature-id, especially the majority of people working on imported data (what's more for the user, there's no way to manage this internal numbering). Those who learn grass in order to /produce/ geographical data may very soon in their learning process be concerned by this. My humble opinion is that awareness of the existence of a geometrical identifier is an integral part of the problem. I would keep it in the sketch, perhaps as you suggest in a less prominent appearance. > No, what I meant is to have a unique cat for each plot in layer 2 and > then have an attibute table with columns cat and type, the second then > giving the type of the plot, while the first is a unique identifier of > each plot. OK, I'll have a look. Thanks, V. _______________________________________________ grass-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-user
