[mapserver-users] Best way to import 4.5TB of imagery?

[Frank Warmerdam]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Evans, James R Civ USAF ACC 84 RADES/SCZE <
James.Evans at hill.af.mil> wrote:

> So, I'm guessing there's no easy way to automate this?  Even looking at the
> states, some of the states are in two zones, and Texas is across 3 zones.
> At least the naming convention of the files indicate the UTM zone.


James,

Note it is pretty easy to write a script (ie. in Python) that would walk
the directory tree and sort the images into distinct (per utm zone)
collections. So, yes, the processing of this data is very automatable.


> For
> instance:  m_2408002_ne_17_1_20100422_201001123.jp2, is in zone 17.  As far
> as I can tell, all the files in a particular directory are all in the same
> UTM zone.  I could create a layer for each UTM zone across CONUS, but
> that's
> not going to be particularly useful to my users.  I'm thinking of making a
> layer for each state.  For the stats that cross zones, there will probably
> be two layers.  For Texas, there would be Texas_east, Texas_middle, and
> Texas_west.  I will probably limit visibility until zoomed in sufficiently
>

Is it important to you to distinguish things by state?  If not, why not one
layer per utm zone, and then join them in a layer group 'UTM NAIP' that the
users would either turn on or off?


> to see the whole state on the screen anyway, since the continental view of
> this data is pretty crappy anyway.


Limiting visibility to reasonable resolutions should be fine and would help
you avoiding needing additional preprocessing to create an overview of the
whole collection.


>  So now it seems like it will be a lot of
> grunt work just copying these directories up to the server, and going
> through and creating a shape file index for each state.  For states in more
> than one UTM, there would be more than one shape.  Then I'll have to add a
> layer for to my mapfile for each shapefile, using the correct projection.
> Is there an easier way?  I'm starting with Oklahoma, which is also in three
> UTM zones.  I'll get that working before moving on.  Any suggestions on
> making this pretty would be welcomed.  :-)
>

Well, I still think you should take states out of the equation unless that
is important to your users.

Good luck,

Best regards,

-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Software Developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-users/attachments/20130610/dc2f88cd/attachment.htm>