Web Map Specification version property

[egorbn]

Hi folks, the Web Map Specification contains a "version" property that isn't well defined.

I'm hoping someone can clarify the different allowed values, and point me to guidance on choosing the right one.

The only information I was able to find on the "version" property is at the link above:

version

[Required] Root element in the web map specifying a string value indicating the web map version. Valid values: 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.24, 2.25, 2.26, 2.27, 2.28

My main questions are:

• What is the difference between the "versions"?
• What's the advice on setting the version number from a custom tool that generates a Web Map to publish to ArcGIS Online?

Thanks,

Egor

[HeatherGonzago · Accepted solution]

Hi, the Webmap version property defines the version of the saved webmap. This version updates every four months (give or take), you should notice that it updates when ArcGIS Online has its update. The latest AGO release in June of this year writes out webmaps with the latest version of 2.28. The version property is required as it's used by other apps working with the webmap.

As for your second question on setting a version number from a custom tool which generates webmaps, as long as your tool follows the spec and adheres to this requirements, it should work as expected. So if you are currently using your tool to generate webmap json, the version number should reflect the latest release, as the spec will adhere to what is specified for this release.  Hope this can help.

[egorbn]

Thanks for your response, @HeatherGonzago! That makes sense.

My suggestions is that this guidance is added to the spec documentation.

Thanks again,

Egor

[HeatherGonzago]

This has been a back and forth discussion as to the level of what is needed when documenting this. Your question conveys the need to provide additional context. I'll make sure to take your info and let others involved in this know that it is something we should look into further.  Thanks again and hope everything works out nicely.