[Benchmarking] split contour files are different

[Dane Springmeyer]

On Jul 26, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Michael Smith wrote:

> Jeff,
> 
> You could just add them as separate layers with a common layername (or group
> name). 
> 
> Mike
> 

Thats what we will do with Mapnik, which has no notion of a tileindex.

- Dane


> 
> On 7/26/10 2:49 PM, "Jeff McKenna" <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
> 
>> Iván,
>> 
>> In order to display the 8 contour shapefiles efficiently in MapServer, a
>> tile index file must be generated.  MapServer requires the files in a
>> tile index to have the exact same attribute definitions and they must me
>> in the same order.
>> 
>> In our full vector dataset this is not the case: contour-5, contour-6,
>> contour-7 files contain different fields.  Here is a sample:
>> 
>> ***
>> contour-4.dbf
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ID: Real (31.15)
>> ELEMENTO: Real (31.15)
>> ID_SIMPLE: Real (31.15)
>> MODIFICADO: Real (31.15)
>> ID_HOJA: Real (31.15)
>> ID_CODE: String (6.0)
>> METADATO: Real (31.15)
>> F_ALTA: String (10.0)
>> F_BAJA: String (10.0)
>> ETIQUETA: String (254.0)
>> ETIQUETAS: Real (31.15)
>> ETIQUETA1: String (10.0)
>> SIMPLE: String (250.0)
>> ETIQUETA0: Real (31.15)
>> PROYECTO: String (3.0)
>> LONGITUD: Real (31.15)
>> PERIMETRO: Real (31.15)
>> SUPERFICIE: Real (31.15)
>> TIPO_0201: String (6.0)
>> CATEG_0201: String (6.0)
>> ORIGE_0201: String (6.0)
>> COTA_0201: Real (31.15)
>> NNECCCPP: String (8.0)
>> ORIGEN_Z: Real (31.15)
>> 
>> contour-5.dbf
>> 
>> ID: Real (31.15)
>> ID_SIMPLE: Real (31.15)
>> MODIFICADO: Real (31.15)
>> ID_HOJA: Real (11.0)
>> ID_CODE: String (6.0)
>> ID_MET: Real (31.15)
>> F_ALTA: String (10.0)
>> F_BAJA: String (10.0)
>> ETIQUETA: String (254.0)
>> ID_COD_ETI: String (10.0)
>> PROYECTO: String (3.0)
>> TIPO_0201: String (2.0)
>> CATEG_0201: String (2.0)
>> ORIGE_0201: String (2.0)
>> COTA_0201: Real (31.15)
>> NNECCCPP: String (8.0)
>> ORIGEN_Z: Real (31.15)
>> 
>> 
>> The contour files must be re-processed so that they contain the same
>> attributes, and then provided to all benchmarking teams.
>> 
>> -jeff
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Benchmarking mailing list
>> Benchmarking at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/benchmarking
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Benchmarking mailing list
> Benchmarking at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/benchmarking

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/benchmarking/attachments/20100726/fa291d32/attachment.html