On 7 April 2014 18:15, Vincent Picavet vincent...@oslandia.com wrote:
A good solution though would be to remove google layers and only use OSM and
mapbox layers, which begin to be on par in terms of quality.
I'm pretty sure this is against MapBox's terms of service too, unless
users were made
Also, when it comes to OSM, IMO proper TMS support should be what is
(eventually) offered as implemented feature to users. That'd allow for OSM
basemaps to also export properly in qgis composer. OpenLayer' layers not
exporting well in qgis composer is a pretty big limitation.
Maybe a simple UI to
Hello,
Le lundi 7 avril 2014 12:05:05, Nyall Dawson a écrit :
On 7 April 2014 18:15, Vincent Picavet vincent...@oslandia.com wrote:
A good solution though would be to remove google layers and only use OSM
and mapbox layers, which begin to be on par in terms of quality.
I'm pretty sure
Since the OpenLayers plugin does not (currently) work with master, perhaps
we can replace it with TMS-based layers, wither through a plugin or as a
native (GDAL-based) provider?
Is there anything in OpenLayers that could not work with GDAL TMS
mini-driver [1] ?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:22 AM,
Since the OpenLayers plugin does not (currently) work with master, perhaps
we can replace it with TMS-based layers, either through a plugin or as a
native (GDAL-based) provider?
Is there anything in OpenLayers plugin that could not work with GDAL TMS
mini-driver [1] ?
[1]
Thanks for the links. Most of this information is also available at [1].
I am preparing a simple plugin to load these layers as raster layers, will
keep you updated on this.
[1] http://www.gdal.org/frmt_wms.html
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:32 PM, kimaidou kimai...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi List
Hi !
I agree with those saying it's better to integrate the features of
top-plugin in the core, if we find the features are worth it, and if
someone has the time to do so, rather than shipping dozens of preinstalled
plugin.
I don't like the impression it gives to have a brand new software
I actually do not see the difference between a core plugin a something
implemented directly in the core c++ code. Other than the extra time
it might take to develop it. The user doesn't have to know it is a
plugin, and it should be easy to actually remove a core plugin from
the plugin manager
Hi Victor
For me, core features (and not core plugins) are much more integrated into
QGIS ui and dialogs. For example, tablemanager plugins adds some nice
features , but they should be integrated in the Fields tab of the vector
layer properties. Having the features separated in a plugin (core or
I agree, each plugin is a different world. It's true that core
development can bring further integration, but maybe moving plugins to
core is a good moment to rethink how plugins can integrate in the QGIS
interface and allow new ways of interacting (for instance, making it
easy for a plugin to add
Il 05/04/2014 18:59, Alex Mandel ha scritto:
Perhaps the proposal is really, which plugins to ship by default?
Which sounds the same but is slightly different or could be interpreted
differently as add the plugins to core.
right, thanks for clarifying.
I'm +1 for adding a few more default
Hi,
I agree there are some plugin which could be added by default, whenever
QGIS has no approaching feature like Openlayers plugin.
For some plugins such as tablemanager, I think we would better add the
features in core, to let the user modify the fields in the Fields tab of
the layer properties,
Paolo
Don't you think that adding mmqgis plugin into core will cause a lot
of confusion, considering that its algorithms are already integrated
in Processing (even with bug fixes in some cases)?
I agree that it would be a great thing to have the OpenLayers plugin
(or at least a similalar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Il 06/04/2014 16:40, Victor Olaya ha scritto:
Don't you think that adding mmqgis plugin into core will cause a lot
of confusion, considering that its algorithms are already integrated
in Processing (even with bug fixes in some cases)?
oh. right.
On 7 April 2014 14:53, Paolo Cavallini cavall...@faunalia.it wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I agree that it would be a great thing to have the OpenLayers plugin
(or at least a similalar functionality) available by default in core
It seems that we all agree on this
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Nathan Woodrow madman...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that adding the plugins to core would be a good idea however I
don't feel that we should just add them in their current state. The plugin
repository has the benefit of of being able to update things faster then
Perhaps the proposal is really, which plugins to ship by default?
Which sounds the same but is slightly different or could be interpreted
differently as add the plugins to core.
I'm +1 for adding a few more default plugins to the distribution,
especially if they are very common in usage. Remember
I think most users would have to download a few plugins before even
considering using QGIS, which ones I certainly don't know since that would
require community input via a poll or something but I would imagine a few
should be installed by default like Processing e.g. Openlayers plugin once
it's
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Etienne Tourigny etourigny@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Nathan Woodrow madman...@gmail.comwrote:
I agree that adding the plugins to core would be a good idea however I
don't feel that we should just add them in their current state.
Hi all.
How about adding some popular, well tested plugin of general usage to
main QGIS? We have done this in the past, e.g. for fTools, GDALTools, DB
Manager etc., and they were good additions to QGIS.
Currently the most downloaded (DESC) are:
http://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/openlayers_plugin/
I think it's a great idea.
+1 for openlayers, once it works with master (I don't use the others)
how about adding value tool?
http://plugins.qgis.org/plugins/valuetool/
But we need to fix the pyqwt bug with debian before including it in main
QGIS.
http://hub.qgis.org/issues/7450
On Fri,
I think it's a great idea, I was actually thinking about this the other day
and glad you brought the topic.
Although we can install plugins certainly it becomes evident when a plugin
should really become a core feature, example the Openlayers Plugin, I bet
almost all people using QGIS downloads
I agree that adding the plugins to core would be a good idea however I
don't feel that we should just add them in their current state. The plugin
repository has the benefit of of being able to update things faster then
the release of QGIS itself if you find bugs, etc, you can also add features
-developer] Adding plugins to core?
To: antoniolocan...@hotmail.com
CC: qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org
I agree that adding the plugins to core would be a good idea however I don't
feel that we should just add them in their current state. The plugin
repository has the benefit of of being able to update
24 matches
Mail list logo
