Hi Tim, Just a note as you asked me to remind you and the core developers about the patch for symbol levels in rule-based rendering. The patch is the last attached file here: http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/ticket/3222 Named: patch_on_r15676-rbr_symbol-levels_reordering_1st-rule_buttons.diff
Using this, I developed 339 rules giving a quite robust symbology for OSM data (point, lines, polygons) and contour lines, with continuous zooming capability from street view (1:2500) to national view (about 1:50 000 000). In addition to being useful to end users, I believe it will meet the increasing needs for customized OSM web servers, thanks to qgis-server. Given that QGIS is much more user friendly than mapnik and osmarender (you concentrate on mapping rather than on stylesheet writing), this should speed up the adoption of qgis-server. (A search for [openstreetmap custom] on google gives 2 Million of results). Hope this helps! Thank you, Mayeul Le samedi 19 mars 2011 à 09:40 +0200, Tim Sutton a écrit : Hi > Mayeul we will apply this after we branch for release (probably around > 1 april). Please remind me if you see the branch notice go out and you > havent seen your patch applied. > > Regards > > Tim > > > > This does not prevent us to work towards SLD in the long term. Still, > > for now, all NG renderers (Single symbol, categorized, graduated) have a > > working "Symbol level" button, except the rule-based renderer; the patch > > will give similar behaviour on all renderers. > > It "kills" me to write this, but if those few lines of the patch are not > > applied, IMHO it is better to remove the "Symbol levels" button from the > > rule-based renderer (because users will try to use it otherwise). > > > > Mayeul > > > > On Friday 04 March 2011 at 16:33 +0100, Marco Hugentobler wrote: > >> > we could > >> > apply your patch to the release branch and keep trunk untouched for > >> > Martin to implement it in his preferred way. Martin, Marco that sound > >> > ok for you? > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Marco > >> > >> Am Freitag, 4. März 2011, um 05.42:09 schrieb Tim Sutton: > >> > Hi Mayeul > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:01 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > (This follows this thread: Branch status for merge and release timeline > >> > > proposal) > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for you answer Tim! I found the clarification useful and I > >> > > appreciate your sense of diplomacy. Here are a few thoughts. > >> > > > >> > > You wrote: "I agree the items in your list should get attention" > >> > > Just to make sure: most of the list (including links to my patch) was > >> > > written by users Neumann and Anitagraser. > >> > > >> > Acknowledged thanks. > >> > > >> > > Among those fixes, we are several developers to believe that symbol > >> > > levels in rule-based rendering should be fixed, even with a temporary > >> > > fix. A fix was proposed in August 2010 by mhugent, see: > >> > > http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/ticket/2832#comment:8 > >> > > His patch was applied except for the symbol level lines (about 10 lines > >> > > of code). > >> > > > >> > > I made improvements to this code and my patch was somehow applied, again > >> > > without the few symbol level lines of code. > >> > > http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/ticket/3222#comment:15 > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > I agree with Martin that it would be better to have a final solution than > >> > > an incomplete one for symbol levels. But since the rule-> based > >> > > rendering is currently in an incomplete state, why put it in the > >> > > renderer stable release anyway? I believe symbol levels make > a huge > >> > > difference in rendering lines. With them, I have a rendering similar to > >> > > Osmarender or Mapnik in QGIS which gives QGIS a > definitive bonus with > >> > > respect to many other desktop or server GIS. > >> > > >> > Ok I had a read through the ticket. Martin is the maintainer of this > >> > code so while I share your desire for symbol levels in rule based > >> > renderer, I think we should give Martin the space to implement the > >> > solution in his way if he has a better approach. I know Martin has a > >> > lot of other things on his plate so lets give him some time. If coming > >> > up to the release we need to apply a band aid fix (that doesnt break > >> > any compatibility) to get 1.7 out with symbol level support, we could > >> > apply your patch to the release branch and keep trunk untouched for > >> > Martin to implement it in his preferred way. Martin, Marco that sound > >> > ok for you? > >> > > >> > > (for a rendering sample, see: > >> > > http://www.qgis.org/qgiswiki/images/f/fd/Lago_di_varese.png > >> > > which is compared with the OSM python plugin rendering here: > >> > > http://www.qgis.org/wiki/Using_OpenStreetMap_data ) > >> > > >> > Very nice - I also have someone working on building rendering rules > >> > for OSM here at Linfiniti and have been reading your notes and the > >> > discussions on OSM symbology here on this list with interest. > >> > > >> > > Also, QGIS rule-based rendering is definitely more powerful than what you > >> > > can achieve on ArcGIS with queries and scale-related visibility, but > >> > > ArcGIS users who need symbol levels will not want QGIS's rule-based > >> > > rendering. > >> > > > >> > > Ideally we should be able to have any combinations of the following: > >> > > -symbol levels ON or OFF > >> > > -apply first matching rule or apply all rules > >> > > (That's 4 combinations) > >> > > > >> > > With a few lines take from any of the two patches proposed by mhugent and > >> > > myself, we can have either: -symbol levels OFF and apply all rules > >> > > -symbol levels ON and apply first matching rule > >> > > > >> > > With the current version (since r15217) we only have: > >> > > -symbol levels OFF and apply all rules > >> > > >> > Yup those all sound useful - the idea being that you could create a > >> > sequence of symbol layers based on rules offers powerful > >> > possibilities. By the way did you figure out the correct syntax for > >> > the modulus operator? I was trying to make a simple rule to make every > >> > contour % 100m a bit thicker. Eventually I settled for contour in > >> > (100,200,300....) which is ugly but worked... > >> > > >> > > Adding the extra capability provided in the two proposed patches does not > >> > > prevent working later on having the missing two combinations: -symbol > >> > > levels ON and apply all rules > >> > > -symbol levels OFF and apply first matching rule > >> > > > >> > > What do you think? > >> > > >> > Yes personally I would like to see these options too. > >> > > >> > Best regards > >> > > >> > Tim > >> > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Mayeul > >> > > > >> > > ----- Mail Original ----- > >> > > De: "Tim Sutton" <[email protected]> > >> > > À: "Mayeul Kauffmann" <[email protected]> > >> > > Cc: "qgis-developer" <[email protected]> > >> > > Envoyé: Mardi 1 Mars 2011 21h44:05 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne > >> > > / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Re: [Qgis-developer] Branch status > >> > > for merge and release timeline proposal > >> > > > >> > > Hi Mayeul > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Mayeul Kauffmann > >> > > > >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> What about open tickets (bug fixes) that are not in branches? What is > >> > >> the timeline for them? > >> > > > >> > > We usually try to make sure there are no show stoppers when we release > >> > > and remaining tickets get carried over to next release. I dont think > >> > > we will ever be able to be in a situation where there are no open > >> > > tickets left at the time of a release. > >> > > > >> > >> Now that New Symbology is the default, I guess > >> > >> the following should be fixed before release, or am I missing something? > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.qgis.org/wiki/Switching_from_Old_to_New_Symbology_and_Labelin > >> > >> g > >> > > > >> > > This is a great list / wiki page. The wait / when to release > >> > > discussion is one that comes up periodically. I agree the items in > >> > > your list should get attention - and no doubt more items will be > >> > > raised when people are using symobology-ng by default. However these > >> > > are not things I believe we should put a hold on the release for. If > >> > > there is a general unhappiness about the situation, we can reinstate > >> > > old symbology by default, but if not, lets put what we have out there > >> > > for people to test and use, and march on towards 2.0. > >> > > > >> > > Regards > >> > > > >> > > Tim > >> > > _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
