Feature Request: Add "listed/unlisted" toggle for places.

[Aitolda]

Sometimes you may want to have your place temporarily unlisted, but still need to be able to share the link. I imagine this could be somewhere in the "edit" options of places, and perhaps during the place creation phase as well.

[Misterblue]

A place has a "visibility" setting that can be "open", "friends", "connections", "group", or "private". At the moment, only "friends" and "connections" is implemented. If visibility is not specified, "open" is assumed. This visibility should effect which places a person can see.

[Aitolda]

To clarify, I currently I have a handful of place names I'm intending to use pointed at one domain. The way it currently works it's all or nothing. So if I have that domain up, all of those places appear as having a person in them but point to the same domain.

[Misterblue]

The attendance for a place is assumed to be attendance of the domain until there is a beacon updating the specific place information. The idea was a Place was just a location bookmark for a domain and, if the place was to identify a specific area of the domain, a beacon-like script would update that place's information with "current" info (the attendance for that sub-area, any updated images for the place, and any updated description).
I am not sure if a standard Place beacon script has been developed. It would need to hold the PlaceId and APIKey for updating the current place information and, whatever logic is needed to count the avatars in an area.
Some of this is explained in the Places doc: https://github.com/vircadia/Iamus/blob/master/docs/API-Places.md

[digisomni]

Should "private" not achieve the intended effect of hiding it from the list?

[Misterblue]

I'm thinking "private" would work. The issue is here because I don't think it's implemented yet.

That doesn't preclude a rethink of metaverse-server visible User and Place information. The implementation has just "visibility" which specifies the class of people who can see the entry. The original suggestion was for a more restrictive type that was more like Google doc's shared URL ("anyone with the URL can reference"). That would allow sharing of the Place link without making the Place public at all. Just a thought, but there could be a larger discussion about what use cases and features Vircadia should to implement for access to Accounts, Places, Domains, ...