[QGIS-Developer] QGIS server issue: bounding box issues

Jonathan Moules jonathan-lists at lightpear.com
Sun May 12 17:27:54 PDT 2019


Hi list,

Unless GeoServer has changed it of late, the way they do BBOX definition is:

* Layer BBOXes are defined at layer creation time.

* Layer BBOXes are entered manually, though there is a button to 
automatically calculate it from the data extent which automatically 
fills in the manual boxes - the values can then be manually tweaked as 
desired.

* Layer BBOXes are not automatically calculated at use-time.

----

It looks like GeoServer also turns a single point into a BBOX of a 
single point: 
https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/113166/the-request-bounding-box-has-zero-area

----

De-factor treatment of bounding boxes: Layers do often have BBOXes that 
do not actually represent the data.

In fact, of the 1.2million WMS, WFS, WCS, WMTS layers in my database, 
nearly 55,000 don't even have BBOXes (or have not-valid-wgs84 coordinates)!

There's no easy way to check how many of the rest are declaring the 
correct BBOX, but experience suggests a lot don't.

----

De jure usage: I've just taken a quick glance at the standards (WMS 1.3, 
WFS 2, WCS 2) and they standards themselves don't seem to address the 
issue of keeping the bboxes contemporary at all or even exactly what 
they're for. The closest I could find as to specifying the exact purpose 
of the bboxes is in the WFS 2 spec:

"The ows:WGS84BoundingBox element may be used to indicate the edges of 
an enclosing rectangle in decimal
degrees of latitude and longitude in WGS84. Its purpose is to facilitate 
geographic searches by indicating where
instances of the particular feature type exist. Since multiple 
ows:WGS84BoundingBox elements may be
specified, a WFS may indicate where various clusters of data exist. This 
knowledge aids client applications by
letting them know where they should query in order to have a high 
probability of finding feature data."

And this is mildly telling from the WMS 1.3 spec:

"There is no provision for describing disjoint bounding boxes. For 
example, consider a dataset which covers two
areas separated by some distance. The server cannot provide two separate 
bounding boxes in the same Layer using the
same CRS to separately describe those areas. To handle this type of 
situation, the server may either define a single larger
bounding box which encloses both areas, or may define two separate 
Layers that each have distinct Name and BoundingBox
values."

So it doesn't look like handling changing extents is something the spec 
writers have specified.

And I can assure you, many servers don't have valid BBOXes defined. In fact

Cheers,

Jonathan


On 2019-05-09 15:37, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 4:16 PM Eric Lemoine <eric.lemoine at oslandia.com 
> <mailto:eric.lemoine at oslandia.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:28:00 +0200
>     Andreas Neumann <a.neumann at carto.net <mailto:a.neumann at carto.net>>
>     wrote:
>
>     > Hi QGIS (server) devs,
>
>     Hi Andreas
>
>     >
>     > We came across issues around calculating bounding boxes in QGIS
>     > server.
>     >
>     > 1. Layers with only one point feature:
>     >
>     > If a layer contains only one single point feature, QGIS server
>     > calculates a bounding box where the minx equals maxx and miny
>     equals
>     > maxy, so resulting in a bounding box without a width and height.
>     > Sounds logical to QGIS server developers,
>
>
>     Yes. The BBOX of a point has minx=maxx and miny=maxy.  Even
>     PostGIS says
>     so :)
>
>
>     > but combined with the fact
>     > that QGIS server doesn't take into account rendered symbol sizes
>     > (another issue we have, see issue nr 2), it means that no WMS client
>     > will ever see this one single symbol rendered, which can't be the
>     > solution here ...
>
>
>     If the GetMap request's BBOX param is set to the layer extent (the
>     BBOX with no dimension here) then it makes sense that there's nothing
>     rendered in the resulting image.  If the GetMap request's BBOX
>     param is
>     set to a BBOX that contains the layer extent then the point should be
>     rendered in the resulting image.
>
>     So to me this is a client issue, not a QGIS Server issue.
>
>
>     > 2. Layer bounding boxes do not take into account rendered symbol
>     > sizes:
>     >
>     > Please have a look at
>     > http://www.carto.net/neumann/temp/qgis_server_bounding_box_issue.png
>     > - The green rectangle and the green arrows are not part of the QGIS
>     > server rendering, but they are added as an annotation to the
>     rendered
>     > QGIS server graphics, to highlight the issues.
>
>
>     What software do you use on the client side?  Does the green
>     rectangle correspond to the BBOX requested by the client? And does the
>     requested BBOX equal the layer extent in this case?  Or does it
>     contain
>     the layer extent?
>
>     I may be wrong but I understand that the requested BBOX (the green
>     rectangle) is the layer extent.  And in that case it makes sense that
>     the symbols are cut for points that are closed to the boundaries. 
>     Again
>     it's a client issue.
>
>
>     > Here we have the issue that QGIS server only uses the "raw" geometry
>     > of point symbols without taking into account rendered symbol sizes.
>     > Now, I do understand that calculating symbol sizes is scale
>     dependent
>     > and there is no single solution to that, but again, I think the
>     > current behavior of QGIS server (simply cutting off symbols at layer
>     > bounding boxes) is not a good and nice behavior. At least, I think
>     > the author of the WMS service should have a chance to define an
>     extra
>     > margin to be added to the bounding boxes of the raw geometries
>     of the
>     > point layer, either as a "per project" or "per layer" QGIS server
>     > configuration.
>     >
>     > @Andrea: I wonder what Geoserver does in such cases?
>     >
>     > Any thoughts how to solve these issues? The current behavior of
>     QGIS
>     > server is not satisfactory to me, for both cases.
>
>     I'd like to better understand the issues that you're seeing but from
>     what I currently understand the behavior of QGIS Server is correct.
>     Happy to be proven otherwise :)
>
>     Cheers,
>
>
> Hi Èric,
>
> I agree with you that QGIS Server does the right thing here, I think 
> that the main question is:
>
> 1. is the WMS GetCapabilities layer's BoundingBox meant to be the 
> features BBOX or can it be larger than that?
> 2. if the latter is true, we need a way to tell QGIS Server that he 
> needs to advertise a BoundingBox in GetCapabilities which is not the 
> layer's BBOX stored in the QGIS project but it's a different (probably 
> larger) one.
>
> all the rest will follow, because the client will get a larger BBOX 
> from GetCapabilities and it will request a larger image that has 
> enough buffer for the symbols.
>
> Note that I checked mapserver and it behaves by default exactly like 
> QGIS Server does (I didn't check the single point but the symbols are 
> cut-off at the layer's bbox in general), except that mapserver allows 
> you to override the layer extent per-layer.
>
> IMO the fix is in the client, either by allowing to override the layer 
> extent advertised by the server and to store it in the project itself 
> (this may require some work in the server side too in order to handle 
> the override) or by setting an option in the WMS provider that will 
> always request the canvas extent.
>
> Cheers
>
> -- 
> Alessandro Pasotti
> w3: www.itopen.it <http://www.itopen.it>
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20190513/0d79fd6a/attachment.html>


More information about the QGIS-Developer mailing list