Desktop RAVE ToC Sample

[philipbaileynar]

Ahead of our conversation on solving layer ordering in desktop RAVE (I don't have time to link to all the tickets), please produce two table of contents:

• [x] Riverscapes Context
• [x] VBET

They can be for any HUC/project, but the table of contents should:

• Include every layer in the project
• demonstrate the vertical order of layers in the map
• demonstrate any group layers (ToC folders) required

We only need each ToC once, for QGIS or ArcGIS, not for both.

Please provide each ToCs as a series of screenshot PNGs with all group layers expanded. You will probably need multiple PNGs per ToC because they will scroll off the bottom of the screen. Complement with supporting video if you feel inclined.

FYI @MattReimer

[MattReimer]

For reference: the main ticket is

• 19

[joewheaton]

Riverscapes Context

Right Now:

This Project if you use Add all Layers to map produces:

Needed:

All that needs to happen is Hillshade moves to bottom. Order of everything else is good from BL.

VBET

VBET is much more representative of our typical Network Scale, Production Grade, Riverscape Tool with Inputs, Intermediates & Outputs.

RightNow:

This project produces if you use Add all Layers to Map:

Needed

The only real problem here is that the order goes 1. Outputs, 2. Inputs, 3. Intermediates and that hillshade is in the inputs.

There is the issue of what we display in tree:

[joewheaton]

BTW... the existing threads in QRAVE are #10, #19 and #47

[philipbaileynar]

So in summary:

1. Business logic should still determine the order of layers in the ToC
2. Business logic folders should still be used as group layers in the ToC.
3. There is no attempt to enforce points over lines over polygons over rasters:
   • in the RSC example above the ecoregions will get added underneath precipitation rasters
   • in the VBET example catchment wings will get added underneath likelihood of being a valley bottom raster

What I'm seeing is that you care about rasters being under vector layers WITHIN A SPECIFIC FOLDER/GROUP. You don't care across folder groups.

[joewheaton]

@philipbaileynar this is good to push on. I am not 100% confident that we've seen how this holds up in reach-scale projects like Topo and GUT. However, let me respond to each of your summaries below trying to keep that in mind:

So in summary:

1. Business logic should still determine the order of layers in the ToC I am leaning towards yes. I know we have discussed the reasons why that might not be the case, and perhaps we could/should look at some other examples. My recollection is the exceptions to letting BL determine order were examples like GCD. That may have more to do with the UI then display order. This puts the onus on the BL curator to get things in "right" order. I think instead of thinking of BL as listing layers in order of importance (we have views for that), it puts them in vectors first, rasters second within a BL folder (see below).

2. Business logic folders should still be used as group layers in the ToC. If you mean things like "Inputs", "Outputs", "Intermediates", absolutely. These are the parent nodes that look like 1st level sub-folders. I think that both Q RAVE and ArcRAVE should pay respect to their order within a layer group in TOC. Lets remember, it is rare to have too many of these on at the same time in practice. They may be loaded, but in the end only a few vector layers (always on top) should be displayed with one transparent raster (if any) over top of a basemap (AP or Topo) and Hillshade.

3. There is no attempt to enforce points over lines over polygons over rasters:

That could be quite helpful for things like Topo projects, but this can be mitigated by curator with just using order from BL.

• in the RSC example above the ecoregions will get added underneath precipitation rasters

Who cares. There is not a good reason to have both of those displayed at same time typically. And a user can always move things around. We're not aiming for 100%, a GIS user can tweak whatever they don't like.

• in the VBET example catchment wings will get added underneath likelihood of being a valley bottom raster

That is fine... not a real problem nor that likely to be displaying those at same time.

What I'm seeing is that you care about rasters being under vector layers WITHIN A SPECIFIC FOLDER/GROUP. You don't care across folder groups.

That is true, with notable exception of Hillshades in my pull request #309