Hi all, I wanted to ask if it was possible to have a custom class sheet and the editing options of a normal page available at the same time? As it stands, for the PointSheet, we will have to skip the WYSIWYG editor for editing the page. However, one thing could be that instead of taking the page's content for the Point's popup, we could introduce a new class property popupContent and have the popup content inside that. This way, we can use WYSIWYG as well. Another approach could be to keep the current Point Editor and use that create points without any sheet. The same questions apply for the Shape Editor as well. What do you think? Best, Fawad On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:53 PM Fawad Ali <m.fawaadali98(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Stéphane, > > Yes, sure. > In the meantime, I will be working on the PointSheet. > However, I do want to ask if the Shape Editor is necessary at this point > if we are going with GeoJSON. We can refer the user to http://geojson.io > for creating the features. What do you think? > > Best, > Fawad > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:04 PM Stéphane Laurière <slauriere(a)xwiki.com> > wrote: > >> OK Fawad, >> >> Meantime since Caty is off, and since today might actually be a bit >> early for me I'm afraid, I'd propose we have the call on Monday 15:00 UTC >> on Monday if that's ok with you . >> >> Cheers >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> Fawad Ali: >> > Stéphane, Ecaterina, >> > >> > About the call, I think we should have it so that we all converge on >> the things to be done. >> > However, tomorrow (Friday), I have a call with the Pakistan's GSoC >> community at about 5 PM UTC. If the call will be finished in two hours I am >> fine with it or we could reschedule it to 2:30 PM UTC or else Monday. >> > >> > Best, >> >> >> -- >> Stéphane Laurière >> XWiki – https://xwiki.com >> >>

Hi Fawad, Hi all, several options for adaptation. So I need your suggestions. it? levels? https://github.com/cbaines/leaflet-indoor https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html Initially I thought about images since many fair organizers provide PDF plans that could be converted into images, but on second thoughts, starting primarily with shapes could be even better in terms of user experience imho. Nothing prevents from adding images in addition in the future, if some users prefer that approach, or a mix as you suggest. This kind of experience is quite inspirational in particular (it's close to the leaflet-indoor example that you pointed out): https://use.mazemap.com/#v=1&zlevel=1&left=6.8518492&right=6.85… That's a question you may consider asking on the forum as well to gather more inputs? Cheers Stéphane

For now, I will move towards the implementation of leaflet-indoor as the base and if there is time, I will also implement the image option since it will be a lot useful. Best, Fawad On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 3:22 PM Fawad Ali <m.fawaadali98(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > One concern in using the leaflet-indoor is that the indoor structures > might not physically exist. > For example, if an engineer prepares a model for a house and wants to > represent the structure in an independent environment then he will prefer > the image as map tiles. ( > https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html ) > > Best, > Fawad > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:46 PM Stéphane Laurière <slauriere(a)xwiki.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Fawad, Hi all, >> >> > Hi everyone, >> > Hope all of you are all right. >> > >> > I am working on the implementation of Indoor Maps. For that, there are >> several options for adaptation. So I need your suggestions. >> > The first question is how would the users be using the indoor maps? >> > - Would they be using images for each level? >> > - Would they prefer to have a normal map and add shape-like objects to >> it? >> > - Or would they like a mixture of both i.e. a normal map with images >> as levels? >> > >> > For a normal map with multilevel structures - we can use >> https://github.com/cbaines/leaflet-indoor >> > For using only images - we can make use of >> https://leafletjs.com/examples/crs-simple/crs-simple.html >> > >> > What do you think would be best considering the map's user base? >> >> Initially I thought about images since many fair organizers provide PDF >> plans that could be converted into images, but on second thoughts, starting >> primarily with shapes could be even better in terms of user experience >> imho. Nothing prevents from adding images in addition in the future, if >> some users prefer that approach, or a mix as you suggest. >> >> This kind of experience is quite inspirational in particular (it's close >> to the leaflet-indoor example that you pointed out): >> >> >> https://use.mazemap.com/#v=1&zlevel=1&left=6.8518492&right=6.85… >> >> That's a question you may consider asking on the forum as well to gather >> more inputs? >> >> Cheers >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> >> > Best, >> > Fawad >> > >> > >> >>

Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to each level.

shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think?

Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor?

Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to each level.

A better structure could also look like: --------- -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape1, Maps.Shapes.Shape2 0:Maps.Shapes.Shape3 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape4, Maps.Shapes.Shape5 --------- Best, Fawad On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:31 PM Fawad Ali <m.fawaadali98(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Stephane, all, > Hope you are having a great day. > > >> Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to >> each level. >> > > Yes, points are also available within the shape editor. > > That could work indeed, but won't it be a bit cumbersome if a user has >> many shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let >> the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think? > > > Sounds great but would that not become a two way process for the user? > The user will have to first create a level and then add all the levels > into an indoor structure. While he can do the same inside a single class. > Another option we can opt is to have a custom structure like custom > classes. (Which I think is more flexible to our needs) > Something like: > --------- > -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape1 > -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape2 > 0:Maps.Shapes.Shape3 > 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape4 > 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape5 > --------- > > >> Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor? > > > Fairly simple ones like visually defining popup content and style for > each shape separately similar to the uMap editor. > Something like: https://up1.xwikisas.com/#eQ9Mck57dv0U0A7kpAvumQ > If there are any suggestions you think should be available as options, > let me know. > > Peace, > Fawad > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:49 PM Stéphane Laurière <slauriere(a)xwiki.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Fawad, Hi all, >> >> > Hi all, >> > >> > After much analyzing I have found a good workflow for creating indoor >> maps. >> > What I have in mind is that we treat indoor structures as map items >> rather than a completely separate map. >> >> This sounds like a good approach indeed imho. >> >> > The levels can be specified along with the shapes to be used for each >> level. Each shape will be created separately using the ShapeSheet. >> >> Right, that will be useful to associate shapes (and points as well?) to >> each level. >> >> > We can have a static list for indoor levels and another one for >> shapes. The shapes will be selected in order of the levels defined. >> > For example, >> > *Shapes List:* Shape1|Shape2}Shape3 >> > *Levels List:* -1|0|1 >> > In this case, level 0 will be mapped to Shape2. >> >> That could work indeed, but won't it be a bit cumbersome if a user has >> many shapes at a given level? We could also introduce a Level class and let >> the user associate a shape with a specific level, what do you think? >> >> > I am working on separately defining options for each shape so they can >> be better used with indoor structures. >> >> Great. What specific options do you have in mind for indoor? >> >> Cheers >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> >> > What do you think? >> > >> > Best, >> > Fawad >> >>

A better structure could also look like: --------- -1:Maps.Shapes.Shape1, Maps.Shapes.Shape2 0:Maps.Shapes.Shape3 1:Maps.Shapes.Shape4, Maps.Shapes.Shape5 ---------

each shape separately similar to the uMap editor. let me know. I see. These options are not specific to indoor maps, right? Regarding the title and the content, as mentioned in my previous message, I'd go for using the shape's page title and content themselves, if possible. Stéphane

shapes required for each level of indoor structures. number of shapes inside a specific space? How does that sound? It would be useful indeed, it seems we're reaching the point where we consider doing a real map editor in addition to a map viewer. I'm just wondering how it goes in terms of priorities and preferences, since having a working structure for dealing with semi-advanced map styles (I have in mind in particular the capacity to associate marker icons with facet values) and also a full-fledged demo showcasing all the major features would be interesting as well. It depends on your inclination really, I feel like you prefer progressing on the editor? Do you still plan to write a small report by the end of the GSoC as well? Stéphane

Hi Stéphane, all, Hope all of you are in good health. I wanted to clarify how I should make the map editor so that we are on the same page. What I have in mind is a map with tools for creating points, paths and shapes. The user will be able to set basic options like the title, style and popup content from the map editor. The user will define the xwiki space the map items will be created in and then each map item will be created with the given title and content. If no title is given, the map item will be numbered according to its type e.g. Point1, Point2 if there are 2 untitled points. What do you think of this? Please let me know so I can start working on it. Thanks, Fawad On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 7:01 PM Fawad Ali <m.fawaadali98(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Stephane, > > I think the users would require an editor. > Having to create each shape separately would be cumbersome for them. > Especially with the case of indoor structures where potentially 10-20 > shapes would be created for each level on average. > > If an advance user does want to link marker icons with facet values he > can use the same kind of images for points and attach a custom class object > to categorize them. I don't think it should be prioritized above the editor. > > Best, > Fawad > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 5:51 PM Stéphane Laurière <slauriere(a)xwiki.com> > wrote: > >> >> > Stéphane, >> > Thanks for the review. >> > >> > I understand that shapes should be separate objects. >> > Then, we need a way for users to easily create the large number of >> shapes required for each level of indoor structures. >> > Should I create a separate shape editor that will easily generate a >> number of shapes inside a specific space? How does that sound? >> >> It would be useful indeed, it seems we're reaching the point where we >> consider doing a real map editor in addition to a map viewer. I'm just >> wondering how it goes in terms of priorities and preferences, since having >> a working structure for dealing with semi-advanced map styles (I have in >> mind in particular the capacity to associate marker icons with facet >> values) and also a full-fledged demo showcasing all the major features >> would be interesting as well. It depends on your inclination really, I feel >> like you prefer progressing on the editor? Do you still plan to write a >> small report by the end of the GSoC as well? >> >> Stéphane >> >>