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

the oil and mineral licenses shouldn’t be overlapping. let’s show only mineral when on the first two tabs, and only oil licences when on the oil tab #27

Open
georgeslabreche opened this issue Sep 14, 2016 · 3 comments
Assignees

Comments

@georgeslabreche
Copy link

No description provided.

@IronRunes
Copy link
Contributor

forgive me if I'm wrong, but:
on tab 1 (companies), we would need to show all licenses.
on tab 2 only minerals. we are currently displaying also oil licenses in the primary list.
on tab 3 only oil licenses.

this has a few UX repercussions, first and foremost detecting what type of license is being clicked and which tab the user should be directed to.
we also might investigate if there's a way to color-code the different licenses.
I'd certainly need a query to pull selective mineral licenses from carto (for tab 2).

@IronRunes
Copy link
Contributor

@georgeslabreche after discussing with Tin I came to a better understanding.
We need a second GEOJSON file that only contains oil licenses, and remove oil licenses from the current GEOJSON file.
We then need to remove all companies that have only oil licenses from the main list in the company tab, and remove oil licenses from the main list in the mineral tab. Pretty sure this can be done via SQL, but let me know if you need any clarification.
I'll then proceed to removing the "i" button on the secondary list in the oil tab, thus preventing people navigating to the company tab and not finding anything.

@IronRunes
Copy link
Contributor

I got around to a solution but it isn't optimal

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants