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

[Alan Boudreault]

The processing use if not very appropriate there since my contour is 
really a type for the moment, not only an extra processing. I would also 
note that the raster reading is different than a normal raster. The 
contour code read it and ensure a grid aligned raster. This is necessary 
to get the proper result of the gdal contour algorithm.

I think we'll have to stay with connectiontype for now. The uvraster 
type will have to be modified for tileindex too. Perhaps the concept of 
transformation or hybrid layer might be discussed in a new RFC?

Alan

On 13-03-26 10:33 AM, Brent Fraser wrote:
> Steve,
>
>    I'd rather not overload (pollute? erode? highjack?) the meaning of
> existing object keywords. For example, "TYPE CONTOUR" would imply
> contours could only be rendered as lines; the future we might want to
> render them as polygons.
>
>    While not ideal, using the PROCESSING directive to specify the type
> of processing doesn't step on the other keywords.
>
> Best Regards,
> Brent Fraser
>
> On 3/26/2013 8:10 AM, Lime, Steve D (MNIT) wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev


-- 
Alan Boudreault
http://www.mapgears.com/