Improve language in spatial overlap validation messages

[davemfish]

@newtpatrol suggests the current language isn't well-understood by users and we could do better:

"Bounding box does not intersect at least one other [...]", and as we've seen on the forum, a lot of people don't understand what that means. Could it be changed to something like "Not all of the spatial layers overlap each other. Do they all have the same projected coordinate system?"

I agree the first half of this proposed language is clearer. But not all models require the "same projected coordinate system", so we may not want to go that far.

Often the problem is an incorrectly assigned coordinate system - meaning the user-defined CRS does not match the actual CRS of the coordinates. This is a notoriously tricky thing for GIS beginners and would be pretty challenging to instruct people how to fix this in a sentence or two.

[davemfish]

For this particular validation message, the workbench does some parsing & formatting to improve readability, so it will be important to make sure that still works well. There are workbench tests covering that formatting which will probably fail if the language is changed. So that will be a good reminder.

[dcdenu4]

I agree this is a tricky one. I wonder if something generic up front like Stacie has:

Not all of the spatial layers overlap each other. Please check projections in a GIS tool as well as the requirements for the model.

And then also dump some helpful debugging info for developer troubleshooting? If we wanted to be fancy it could even be a Details dropdown that's hidden?

Bounding box does not intersect at least one other [...]

[davemfish]

Let's at least take action on this part of the suggestion:

"Bounding box does not intersect at least one other [...]", and as we've seen on the forum, a lot of people don't understand what that means. Could it be changed to something like "Not all of the spatial layers overlap each other."