[Geomoose-users] GM3: Different Projections, securing underlying data?

[Dan Little]

And as an aside: Jim and I are always open for sponsorship or a contract
for new features or for forward porting older features. The time / money /
etc for 3.0 focused on Web-Mercator based maps. If we want to use a
different projection for the basemap, we built-in most of the functionality
but it's just not terribly well tested and I can only assume there are some
actual bugs with it.

Cheers!


On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com> wrote:

> x/y status bar can be in anything you like it is now independent of the
> map.  See "Configure Coordinate Display" in the workshop [1]
>
> Air photo background shouldn't be a problem as it is WMS.  IIRC the bug
> had something to do with identify or select features over WFS.  I don't
> remember the details of what versions were affected.
>
> Open Data, particularly from governments, seems to be the trend at least
> in MN, [2], [3], etc.   That said, you are correct, GeoMoose 2.x does more
> of the processing (most notably select and search) on the server in PHP
> scripts vs using directly querying WFS so it does hide the source data a
> bit better from the end user, but even with just WMS you can reconstruct
> the vectors from the image with a little effort.  You could theoretically
> replicate the PHP model with GeoMoose 3.x but it would take some effort.
>
> [1] http://geomoose.github.io/gm3/workshop/
>
> [2] https://gisdata.mn.gov/organization
> [3] http://www.twincities.com/2014/02/10/ramsey-county-gis-
> data-will-soon-be-free/
>
>
> On 09/27/2017 02:35 PM, Mark Volz wrote:
>
> Dan and Jim,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your reply.
>
>
>
> Regarding projections, I would still like to use county coordinates for
> the x/y status bar, underlying data, air photo background, etc.  I have no
> desire to use Google or Mapnik boundaries.  Therefore I would like to
> continue using my county coordinates if possible.  Is there a way that I
> can verify which version of Mapserver / MS4W has the projection bug so that
> I can avoid that version of Mapserver / MS4w if I choose to use my own
> projection?
>
>
>
> Regarding sharing data through WMS, WFS, and GeoJson.  Our county does not
> have an “Open Data” Policy yet.   Therefore I think I should do my due
> diligence to try to protect users from downloading the parcels in a vector
> format through an open WFS or GeoJSON endpoint – even if it is just the
> outline and Parcel Identification Number.   So it sounds like my choices
> right now are 1) Adopt an Open data Policy.  2) Use GeoMOOSE 3.x, but
> without the cool features, or 3) Use GeoMOOSE 2.x.  Is that correct?  If so
> perhaps there might be more interest in adopting an open data policy.
>
>
>
> Thank You!
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *Mark Volz, GISP*
>
>
>
> *From:* Dan Little [mailto:theduckylittle at gmail.com
> <theduckylittle at gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2017 6:27 PM
> *To:* Jim Klassen <klassen.js at gmail.com> <klassen.js at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Mark Volz <MarkVolz at co.lyon.mn.us> <MarkVolz at co.lyon.mn.us>;
> GeoMOOSE Users List <geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org>
> <geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Geomoose-users] GM3: Different Projections, securing
> underlying data?
>
>
>
> Jim hit the nail on the head.
>
>
>
> Also, it's important to keep in mind you were ALWAYS publishing that data,
> as mapserver had access to it via through WMS AND its own protocols. It is
> best to limit which attributes are published if you're worried about
> privacy protection.
>
>
>
> On Sep 22, 2017 18:23, "James Klassen" <klassen.js at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A quick answer from the top of my head.
>
> 1) No, but it works around a bug in some versions of MapServer and
> generally makes life a little simpler.  The data can still be stored in
> your favorite projection and it gets reprojected on the fly for the map.
>
> 2) GeoMoose 3 will display and identify features on WMS layers but it
> needs access to the vector features (WFS or GeoJSON) to do a lot of the
> cool new stuff (client side buffering, querying based on features in a
> layer, and IIRC the results grid to name a few).
>
> Some options:
> * Not allow vector access and live with the reduced feature set
> * Allow vector access but filter it with MapServer to limit what
> features/attributes/etc. is exposed.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Mark Volz <MarkVolz at co.lyon.mn.us> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am curious about a couple things regarding GeoMOOSE 3.
>
>
>
> First,
>
> I have seen several emails referencing projection 4326.  Is that the only
> supported projection or can we use our own?
>
>
>
> Second,
>
> Unlike GeoMOOSE 2.x, It appears that GeoMOOSE 3 relies heavily on OGC and
> GeoJSON.  Does this imply that we have to have our underlying data exposed
> on a web server that could be accessed by clients other than GeoMOOSE, or
> can we still keep the underlying data private?
>
>
>
> Thank You!
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *Mark Volz, GISP*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing list
> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing list
> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-users/attachments/20170927/7f98aa39/attachment.html>