- From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:07:59 +0000
- To: Clemens Portele <portele@interactive-instruments.de>
- Cc: "andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu" <andrea.perego@ec.europa.eu>, Linda van den Brink <l.vandenbrink@geonovum.nl>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADtUq_3D_SNr5Kx2Axxn-krEBJzXpPmam7DhKdHewVPCoF5q9w@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Clemens! Andrea - I suspect you're already pressed to get the existing edits for BP8 done in time for Delft. So long as we know _what_ we need to add, the edits that Clemens & I suggest could be pushed to the March-April sprint. Jeremy On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 at 18:01, Clemens Portele < portele@interactive-instruments.de> wrote: > I agree, Jeremy. > > Related to generalising geometries with Douglas-Peucker or similar, this > is also something that can be easily supported via a data acess API by > specifying a parameter that expresses the resolution of the map used to > display the data in the client. The next version of WFS will support it > ([1] is the public change request) and ArcGIS supports it for some time > [2], too. In my view, this capability can be considered a best practice. If > we have text about this in BP8, maybe we could add a reference to it in > BP11. > > The WFS implementation of my company also supports such a capability, but > currently we use a custom HTTP header as a work-around as the WFS query > schema does not support this yet. > > Vector tiling is another possible approach to packaging a spatial dataset > more "Web-friendly", if map display of the dataset is the main focus. The > de-facto standard is [3]. > > Clemens > > [1] https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=43079 > [2] > https://blogs.esri.com/esri/arcgis/2011/06/13/feature-layers-can-generalize-geometries-on-the-fly/ > [3] https://github.com/mapbox/vector-tile-spec > > On 9 Mar 2017, at 17:38, Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Andrea - it just occurred to me that we're missing a topic in BP8 > concerning making geometries "friendly" for the Web. > > It's not just about the format(s) we use, it's also about providing > geometry objects that are of a size that user agents can handle. (this [1] > example provides a nice illustration) > > I recall that the Geonovum testbed topic 3 covered this issue; see here [2] > > What do you (& others) think? > > Jeremy > > [1]: https://bost.ocks.org/mike/simplify/ > [2]: > https://github.com/geo4web-testbed/topic3/wiki/Performance-%26-data-compactness > > >
Received on Thursday, 9 March 2017 18:08:42 UTC