Skip to content

Move most raster layers to MaplibreGL & remove dead code #297

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: staging
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

ZeLonewolf
Copy link

@ZeLonewolf ZeLonewolf commented Jun 21, 2025

Initial incremental step towards OpenHistoricalMap/ohm-website#651

Description

This PR moves most of the raster layers to MapLibre GL and removes associated dead code that I discovered during the process. I'm leaving the standard tile layer for now because it's hooked into a few other places that seemed more complicated to handle.

How has this been tested?

Tested locally, appears to look identically between localhost and openhistoricalmap.org.


.toggleClass("btn-primary", true)
.toggleClass("btn-secondary", false)
.tooltip(true ? "disable" : "enable");
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will always resolve to "disable". The ternary is apparently unnecessary because we don’t feature the Tracestrack Topo layer, but will this be a source of conflicts with upstream?

style: {
version: 8,
sources: {
'cyclosm': {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: This part of the diff is somewhat inconsistent in its use of single versus double quotation marks.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is like this because the file I pulled it in from was using single quotes. Should I just change them to be consistent through?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, might as well to be internally consistent.

ZeLonewolf and others added 2 commits July 2, 2025 18:06
@danrademacher
Copy link
Member

@erictheise is going to look at this as soon as we do an upstream catchup, expected today. Then we'll look at this relative to that newer code from upstream

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants