<div dir="ltr">Dear PSC,<div><br></div><div><span style="background-color:transparent">I would like to motion to adopt</span><span style="background-color:transparent"> </span><span class="gmail-il" style="background-color:transparent">RFC</span><span style="background-color:transparent">-</span><span class="gmail-il" style="background-color:transparent">142</span><span style="background-color:transparent">: </span>Geodesic Scalebar Measurement.<span style="background-color:transparent"> </span>Based on the <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/2026-May/017361.html">discussion of this RFC</a> I've simplified the solution by removing the MEASURE parameter (therefore the RFC has been renamed) and that the result represents horizontal local scale at the map center (not bound to the actual scalebar location). According to Even's suggestion, <span style="background-color:transparent">if the project has a CRS we use the geodesic scale, otherwise fallback to cartesian method.</span></div><div><span style="background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:transparent">The modified RFC can be found here: </span><span style="background-color:transparent"><a href="https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-142.html">https://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-142.html</a></span></div><div><span style="background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div><span style="background-color:transparent">The corresponding PR with the suggested changes: </span><span style="background-color:transparent"><a href="https://github.com/MapServer/MapServer/pull/7507/changes">https://github.com/MapServer/MapServer/pull/7507/changes</a></span></div><div><span style="background-color:transparent"><br></span></div><div>Starting with my +1,<span style="background-color:transparent"></span></div><div><br></div><div>Tamas</div></div>