Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Position and size of some elements differ from the specs #102

Closed
michmuel opened this issue Mar 25, 2022 · 8 comments · Fixed by #111
Closed

Position and size of some elements differ from the specs #102

michmuel opened this issue Mar 25, 2022 · 8 comments · Fixed by #111
Assignees

Comments

@michmuel
Copy link
Collaborator

Some elements are larger/smaller or at another position than in the specs. See comments in the PDFs.

PDFs

CH107812348389_comments.pdf
CH871277778361_comments.pdf

Specs

https://www.cadastre.ch/content/cadastre-internet/de/manual-oereb/service/extract/static/_jcr_content/contentPar/tabs_copy_copy_copy_/items/dokumente/tabPar/downloadlist/downloadItems/426_1475413822017.download/Weisung-statischer-Auszug-de.pdf

@marionb
Copy link
Contributor

marionb commented Apr 28, 2022

@michmuel can you specify which of the elements of this issue still need to be looked at after the fix of PR #107?

@michmuel
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@marionb

CH107812348389_comments.pdf
page 1: Background map --> We solved this issue as it is a matter of our configuration.
page 4: Spacing issue remains.

CH871277778361_comments.pdf
page 1: Background map and area label issues solved.
page 1: The other issues remain open. Scale label definition possibly inconsistent in specs.
page 2: Texts are ok (#97).
page 3: Issue remain.
page 4: Positioning issues: The position of the respective elements are different now. But they do not agree with the specs. Why were the positions changed in this way? @voisardf do you know something about it?
page 4: The "dash" issue remains. Its probably more an aesthetic thing than an instruction from specs. The use of a dash or better no dash should be consistent in the document.
page 10: The issue regarding the page break remains.

@marionb
Copy link
Contributor

marionb commented Apr 28, 2022

@michmuel
It is quite hard to discuss any of these points as it requires to open about three files and it is all in one issue.
If you can take this apart more and perhaps use screen shots instead of annotated PDF it would help to make the discussion easier and we know we are talking about the same things. I am not sure if some of the annotations move when I opened them on my system.
Are these PDFS already with the new version of the templates?

I have some questions here:

  1. CH107812348389_comments.pdf

CH107812348389_comments.pdf: page 4: Spacing issue remains.

image

I am not sure if I am on the wrong page here but I do not see a spec that about "40mm vertical spacing".
the spec shows this:
image

  1. CH871277778361_comments.pdf

page 1: The other issues remain open. Scale label definition possibly inconsistent in specs.

what do you mean with possibly? Can you be more specific please.

  1. CH871277778361_comments.pdf

page 3: Issue remain.

See my comment in issue #98

  1. CH871277778361_comments.pdf

page 4: The "dash" issue remains. Its probably more an aesthetic thing than an instruction from specs. The use of a dash or better no dash should be consistent in the document.

note this is a duplicate of issue #99

@michmuel
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@marionb I agree that this issue is not optimally presented for fixing the respective code.

Screenshot from 2022-04-29 08-18-34

page 12 of the specs:
"Das angezeigte Massstabsymbol ist zu verwenden mit auf 5er- resp. 10er-Werte gerundeten Ein­heiten. Das Symbol ist mit einem weissen Halo zu umgeben."
Screenshot from 2022-04-29 08-22-37

But:
page 1 of appendix A
Screenshot from 2022-04-29 08-23-56

==> The used symbol is the same as shown in page 12. That is ok. The implemented rounding is appropriate as for small properties rounding to units of 5 or 10 makes no sense. However, the size of the symbol should be fixed.

@marionb marionb mentioned this issue Apr 29, 2022
3 tasks
@marionb
Copy link
Contributor

marionb commented Apr 29, 2022

@michmuel

  • The scale issue looks like an issue in MFP. Setting the width is not fully respected. Should I investigate more on this?

  • Positioning issues: The position of the respective elements are different now. But they do not agree with the specs. Why were the positions changed in this way? @voisardf do you know something about it?

    I think this should be about what is in the specs but it is hard to set this 100% the same.

@marionb
Copy link
Contributor

marionb commented May 2, 2022

@voisardf I'll assign this also to you so so you are also informed.
For the moment I left the problem with the scale I think this will require more time.

@marionb marionb removed their assignment May 2, 2022
@michmuel
Copy link
Collaborator Author

michmuel commented May 2, 2022

@marionb Seems fine to me. Thanks. I suggest closing this issue and continuing working on scale and the minor deviations from specs only if really required.

@marionb
Copy link
Contributor

marionb commented May 2, 2022

OK thanks @michmuel then I'll merge and close this issue. You can open a new one for he scale if it is needed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants