Hi Daniel,<br><br>Good point. I've just been waiting for someone more proficient than me, who confirms that this approach makes sense ;-)<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Tamas<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/5/16 Daniel Morissette <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dmorissette@mapgears.com">dmorissette@mapgears.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On 11-05-14 03:21 PM, Tamas Szekeres wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
However the desired scale range (MINSCALEDENOM, MAXSCALEDENOM) could<br>
indeed be taken into account when accessing the source layers, by using<br>
a minor change.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
If that's not the case already then I think MINSCALEDENOM, MAXSCALEDENOM from the source layer should be taken into account by default with UNION layers. i.e. when one sets up a layer with min/max scale, it is normally because the data is not appropriate for use at other scales, so I see no reason to expose via in the union layer outside of those scales either.<br>
<br>
My 0.02$<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
-- <br>
Daniel Morissette<br>
<a href="http://www.mapgears.com/" target="_blank">http://www.mapgears.com/</a><br>
Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
mapserver-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>