formatting of BoundingBox coordinates (mapows.c)

Steve Lime steve.lime at DNR.STATE.MN.US
Sat Nov 5 01:16:23 EST 2005

That's what WCS does and I think that decision was based off some discussions so I think that'd work...


>>> Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at DMSOLUTIONS.CA> 11/04/05 4:19 PM >>>
Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> The downside to using %f is that we really need to provide explicit
> precision (ie. %.3f or %.15f).  Without knowing too much about the
> SRSes in question it is often hard to pick an optimal precision.  If
> we pick to much precision we end up introducing "noise" digits at
> the end beyond the double precision of the inputs that makes
> comparison of extents with other servers messy.  If we provide too
> little precision and the coordinate system ends up being geographic
> then we could easily be giving very poor bounds.

There seems to be no easy solution to this as you explained. In other 
places we use %.15g, that's at least better than %f, perhaps we should 
use that there too?

  Daniel Morissette               dmorissette at
  DM Solutions Group    

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list