[mapserver-dev] Request for review/comments on RFC 85 (Contour Layer Rendering)

[Lime, Steve D (MNIT)]

It would be nice to avoid using the processing directive in this way. Why not simply use the layer TYPE or "TYPE CONTOUR".

Steve

________________________________________
From: mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] on behalf of Brent Fraser [bfraser at geoanalytic.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:47 AM
To: Alan Boudreault
Cc: mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [mapserver-dev] Request for review/comments on RFC 85 (Contour Layer Rendering)

Instead of
     CONNECTIONTYPE CONTOUR

how about using
     PROCESSING "TYPE=CONTOUR"
or
     PROCESSING "TYPE=DEM2CONTOUR"

to allow the CONNECTIONTYPE to specify a connection to a database, etc

Best Regards,
Brent Fraser

On 3/26/2013 6:21 AM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
> Brent, yes, that's what I mean in my first point.. but typo. * the
> connectiontype use will be kept*... until we define another way for
> hybrid layers.
>
> Thanks
> Alan
>
> On 13-03-25 10:07 PM, Brent Fraser wrote:
>> So we're sticking with the "CONNECTIONTYPE CONTOUR"?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Brent Fraser
>>
>> On 3/25/2013 1:22 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
>>> Dev,
>>>
>>> I would like to do the inclusion this week. A few comments about the
>>> current implementation:
>>>
>>> - For now, I think the contourlayer use will be kept, we will need to
>>> think more about hybrid layers for mapserver 6.4.
>>> - Tileindex are not supported (yet)
>>> - Postgis raster are not supported (yet)
>>>
>>> http://mapserver.org/trunk/development/rfc/ms-rfc-85.html
>>>
>>> I'll do the call for vote tomorrow morning if there's no objection.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On 12-09-21 03:22 AM, Havard Tveite wrote:
>>>> I am not sure if contour generation should be a job for Mapserver,
>>>> but if we decide to implement it, I think there is a need for
>>>> processing directives for "smoothing" / generalisation.
>>>> It should be possible to specify the level of "smoothing" for the
>>>> DEM as well as for the resulting contours.
>>>> Smoothing levels could be specified as the maximum deviation
>>>> allowed from the "original".
>>>> Contour "smoothing" / generalisation needs to pay attention to
>>>> neighbouring contours / topology, so that contours don't cross
>>>> after smoothing.
>>>>
>>>> Possible processing directives for a DEM tolerance of 25 units
>>>> (xyz) and contour tolerance of 10 units (xy):
>>>> PROCESSING "DEM_TOLERANCE"=25"
>>>> PROCESSING "CONTOUR_TOLERANCE=10"
>>>> They could be made scale dependent in the way that is suggested
>>>> in the RFC.
>>>> "TOLERANCE" might not be the best word - "GENERALIZATION"
>>>> is also be a possibility.
>>>>
>>>> It would also be good to choose an approach that will not
>>>> make it impossible to use a point layer (xyz or xy+height
>>>> attribute) as a data source.
>>>>
>>>> Håvard
>>>>
>>>> On 9/20/2012 5:40 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to request some review on a pending RFC regarding support
>>>>> for
>>>>> contour layer rendering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please see
>>>>> https://raw.github.com/mapserver/docs/master/en/development/rfc/ms-rfc-85.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The official rfc page should be updated in about a hour.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mapserver.org/trunk/development/rfc/ms-rfc-85.html.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alan
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mapserver-dev mailing list
>>>> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


_______________________________________________
mapserver-dev mailing list
mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev