I had a mysterious adventure playing about with the klm files in which I finally gave myself an introductory education on regex.
Ditto, except, I’d want to suggest Google Maps is really good on most things, but a bit rubbish on some; not being able to insert discrete links in descriptions being one, a limitation on amount of description that can be inserted being another, and a link redirect delay and a limitation on the number of layers that can be used thrown in for fun.
Oooh, cool! I didn’t know that.
It takes a tiny bit of time, but is easy enough for it to be perfectly doable (more kml and regex fun ). The question of whether it is desirable might be another thing: here is an example with the capitals layer. Much as I’m all for hooting and tooting for the open source movement, the reason why I looked at uMap is because for the purpose of adding links Google Maps is the poorer option.
In many other circumstances I wouldn’t be overly fussed about the aesthetic, but here I feel inserting a bunch of long links has an excessively detrimental effect on the ability to read/access the given information.
Furthermore, for shorter entries it’s not a problem, but, given the description limit, for longer entries it means the description will get cut off: eg. Bārānasī, or Rājagaha.
Yep, there surely are! Delicate balance and all. My criteria went something like
- satisfies certain requirements unsatisfied elsewhere
- poorly performing aspects are not so bad as to preclude the experiment (at one point I thought the data wasn’t searchable which would have put a swift end to that idea)
- allowance for the “it is adoption that supports development” principle.
I did, however, make my assessment well before adding the territory (polygon) layers, and this might have tipped things in another way as uMap really doesn’t seem to be able to cope with them especially well.
In any case, there is now an additional bit of data available (new number conversions) that should be easily enough extractable and adaptable for other applications.
Me either, but I just don’t see how else to reconcile the information that Pācīnavaṁsadāya and Sahajāti were in Cetiya. A big shrug of the shoulders on that one!
Yes, but not toooo much detail, right? There’s just no way that I haven’t made at least a few mistakes.
Shucks! Looks like another introductory education for me