Docs updates for new maps

[LiamConnors]

[archmoj]

Great PR. Thanks @LiamConnors for all this. :medal_sports: :trophy: :star2: I suggest we set status of this PR to on hold as we did for https://github.com/plotly/plotly.js/pull/7015 and don't merge it. That way we could simply look at the main differences between the two.

Then you could duplicate your branch, rename all the docs files that has mapbox in their name to map and then bring back the mapbox docs from master and open a new pull request. This way we have docs for both mapbox and new maps on the other PR. Thank you!

[archmoj]

Here is a list of doc files that has mapbox in their name:

./doc/python/mapbox-county-choropleth.md
./doc/python/mapbox-layers.md
./doc/python/filled-area-on-mapbox.md
./doc/python/mapbox-density-heatmaps.md
./doc/python/lines-on-mapbox.md
./doc/python/scattermapbox.md
./doc/python/hexbin-mapbox.md

[LiamConnors]

Here is a list of doc files that has mapbox in their name:

./doc/python/mapbox-county-choropleth.md
./doc/python/mapbox-layers.md
./doc/python/filled-area-on-mapbox.md
./doc/python/mapbox-density-heatmaps.md
./doc/python/lines-on-mapbox.md
./doc/python/scattermapbox.md
./doc/python/hexbin-mapbox.md

I think leaving the file names as is is okay for now as they are not displayed in the docs and it makes it easier for anyone reviewing this PR to see what's changed

[archmoj]

Yes we could keep mapbox names in this PR. But for the other one we want to merge those should be renamed as we need to keep doc for mapbox traces.

[LiamConnors]

Yes we could keep mapbox names in this PR. But for the other one we want to merge those should be renamed as we need to keep doc for mapbox traces.

This PR keeps some mapbox examples. Like here https://github.com/plotly/plotly.py/pull/4706/files#diff-aeb7417e2580482c1fb42c4b976c4e0beb113fcb7333efee59c57bc06d3e04e6R138-R161 But I'm not sure we need to keep all examples written using Mapbox traces and the main focus of the pages should now be the new traces. What do you think @ndrezn @emilykl

[archmoj]

IMHO, for a while we need to keep mapbox examples until they could use the next plotly.py version in their systems. @ndrezn @emilykl @gvwilson

[archmoj]

Also having two versions (mapbox and new map) on two doc files, could help everyone see the difference between the two.

[ndrezn]

We should keep some mapbox examples, but like in plotly.py I would expect a deprecation notice associated with them. With the major version where we fully drop support for Mapbox I would also expect we drop these examples (and note in the new docs that these maps replace the previous Mapbox trace types with feature parity).

[archmoj]

There is also hexbin_mapbox in figure_factory at packages/python/plotly/plotly/figure_factory/_hexbin_mapbox.py. We should possibly add hexbin_map. No?

[gvwilson]

I'm OK with shipping most of the maps in this release and doing another with the small number of maps we didn't get to.

[LiamConnors]

We should keep some mapbox examples, but like in plotly.py I would expect a deprecation notice associated with them. With the major version where we fully drop support for Mapbox I would also expect we drop these examples (and note in the new docs that these maps replace the previous Mapbox trace types with feature parity).

Agreed. Kept one example for each page and they have the following deprecation notice https://github.com/plotly/plotly.py/pull/4706/commits/b849b3836155cd24b94e5960afe32e1ff3e04eaf

It's also mentioned that the other traces are the new way to create maps