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

Clarify meaning of Layer ID Field #143

Closed
koebi opened this issue Jun 2, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #225
Closed

Clarify meaning of Layer ID Field #143

koebi opened this issue Jun 2, 2021 · 4 comments · Fixed by #225
Assignees
Labels
easy fix Issues that are rather quick to be resolved

Comments

@koebi
Copy link
Collaborator

koebi commented Jun 2, 2021

There seems to be a bit of confusion about the usage of the Layer ID Field.
It seems that most people assume this to be the field that is used for determining the order of waypoints when requesting a route.

This will get fixed by #142, but the intended usage should still be communicated more clearly (as I am also unsure on what the idea is and how it should get used).

@MichaelsJP MichaelsJP added the easy fix Issues that are rather quick to be resolved label Oct 2, 2023
@koebi koebi self-assigned this Nov 6, 2023
@koebi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

koebi commented Nov 13, 2023

The idea of this parameter is, that one attribute of the input layer is kept in the output layer to be able to join the input layer's attributes to the output layer.

Here's an example question for this feature from our support:

When I use openrouteservices to calculate the accessibility of a certain point, I get isochrones back, which unfortunately dont have the original attributes of the point-Layer. Is there any possibility to have the isochrones display the original attributes?

The idea that this is used to join attribute tables may be reflected in the parameter name. Suggestions are welcome.

@koebi koebi assigned merydian and unassigned koebi Nov 17, 2023
@merydian
Copy link
Collaborator

Why not simply Join-ID Field?

@koebi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

koebi commented Dec 1, 2023

I am not sure if that is the only purpose of the fileld, but that's probably already better than what we have.
Maybe @maze2point0 has a suggestion?

@koebi
Copy link
Collaborator Author

koebi commented Dec 4, 2023

I am not sure if that is the only purpose of the fileld, but that's probably already better than what we have :)
Maybe @maze2point0 has a suggestion?

@merydian merydian linked a pull request Feb 12, 2024 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
easy fix Issues that are rather quick to be resolved
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants