You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, every legend entry depicts both a label and an icon, as long as it’s part of the backing symbol layer. But the label is only necessary for some symbol layers, such as the place layers, that are distinguished from each other by the label’s text size, font style, or color. The label is visually appealing but not as significant to some other symbol layers, such as airports. For POI layers (#387, #689), it’s quite unnecessary and has a much greater potential to look wonky as the name gets long.
A legend entry’s configuration should be able to specify whether to show the label, controlling whether this method gets called:
Either could work, though there might be reasons to exclude the label from individual entries apart from the other entries in a category. For example, I’ve thought about special-casing the “Capital city” entry to omit the label, to emphasize that the entry is really about the special icon, not the potentially large label.
If we control the label’s visibility at the category level, then getRowForEntry() needs to take that setting (or the whole section) as a second parameter.
Currently, every legend entry depicts both a label and an icon, as long as it’s part of the backing symbol layer. But the label is only necessary for some symbol layers, such as the place layers, that are distinguished from each other by the label’s text size, font style, or color. The label is visually appealing but not as significant to some other symbol layers, such as airports. For POI layers (#387, #689), it’s quite unnecessary and has a much greater potential to look wonky as the name gets long.
A legend entry’s configuration should be able to specify whether to show the label, controlling whether this method gets called:
openstreetmap-americana/src/js/legend_control.js
Lines 241 to 242 in 67c3e17
/ref #689 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: