This is a nice to have feature of course, the spatial matching. However is is also extremely tedious when marching large number of facilities for instance. Normally the.spelling may only differ slightly but there will inevitably be a need to provide some type of feedback to the user that the import is not possible because there names in the geodata that do not correspond to the dhis database. Ideally, users should be able to match against the existing hierarchy. Again I have not tried this yet but am leery about using the GML option just yet.
Also, is it still possible in 2.0.5 to view a map of all administration units at level 2 as opposed to just the subset available through the drill down function?
Hi,
I would like to suggest that we finally remove the map source types
“GeoJSON” and “Shapefiles” from the GIS client.
Jason pointed out to me one big issue with the transition from
external GeoJSON files to importing geometries via GML: We lose the
functionality for linking shapes to orgunits in the GUI. I think the
spatial linking was quite cool, though perhaps not very important.
However, different spellings is a major issue. With the current GML
solution, there is no assistance for the user to point out which names
differ, or how to make changes - it has to be done outside of DHIS2,
either in the DBF file before converting or in GML.
Knut
They are not able to offer
most of the functionality that will be implemented in the future and even
maintaining them as they are would hamper the development of new
functionality considerably. However, overlays could still be loaded from
local geojson files.
In other words, I would like to control the geojson input to the thematic
widgets completely by letting our own server produce it. This geojson may
contain data from Geoserver, health surveys etc.
JH
This is a nice to have feature of course, the spatial matching. However is is also extremely tedious when marching large number of facilities for instance. Normally the.spelling may only differ slightly but there will inevitably be a need to provide some type of feedback to the user that the import is not possible because there names in the geodata that do not correspond to the dhis database. Ideally, users should be able to match against the existing hierarchy. Again I have not tried this yet but am leery about using the GML option just yet.
Also, is it still possible in 2.0.5 to view a map of all administration units at level 2 as opposed to just the subset available through the drill down function?
No, not in 2.0.5. However, in trunk you can, and in a couple of days you may select parent and level.
Hi,
I would like to suggest that we finally remove the map source types
“GeoJSON” and “Shapefiles” from the GIS client.
Jason pointed out to me one big issue with the transition from
external GeoJSON files to importing geometries via GML: We lose the
functionality for linking shapes to orgunits in the GUI. I think the
spatial linking was quite cool, though perhaps not very important.
However, different spellings is a major issue. With the current GML
solution, there is no assistance for the user to point out which names
differ, or how to make changes - it has to be done outside of DHIS2,
either in the DBF file before converting or in GML.
Knut
They are not able to offer
most of the functionality that will be implemented in the future and even
maintaining them as they are would hamper the development of new
functionality considerably. However, overlays could still be loaded from
local geojson files.
In other words, I would like to control the geojson input to the thematic
widgets completely by letting our own server produce it. This geojson may
contain data from Geoserver, health surveys etc.
JH