New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarify extents for tiles (contents vs. tile matrix) #366

Closed
jyutzler opened this Issue Jun 2, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@jyutzler
Contributor

jyutzler commented Jun 2, 2017

These definitions are conflicting.

Section 2.2.6.1.1 Table Definition
The gpkg_tile_matrix_set table defines the spatial reference system (srs_id) and the maximum bounding box (min_x, min_y, max_x, max_y) for all possible tiles in a tile pyramid user data table. All tiles present in the tile pyramid SHALL fall within this bounding box. However, the bounding box MAY be larger than the minimum bounding rectangle around the actual tiles in that pyramid.
Section 2.2.6.1.2 Table Data Values
The minimum bounding box defined in the gpkg_tile_matrix_set table for a tile pyramid user data table SHALL be exact so that the bounding box coordinates for individual tiles in a tile pyramid MAY be calculated based on the column values for the user data table in the gpkg_tile_matrix table. For example, because GeoPackages use the upper left tile origin convention defined in clause Table Data Values below, the gpkg_tile_matrix_set (min_x, max_y) ordinate is the upper-left corner of tile (0,0) for all zoom levels in a table_name tile pyramid user data table.

The SWG determined today that we need to clarify the definitions. The extents in gpkg_contents should indicate the extents of the actual data in the layer and applications may use these extents as a default view. The extents in gpkg_tile_matrix_set shall indicate the extents of the tile matrix set itself.

@jyutzler jyutzler added this to the 1.2-comment period milestone Jun 2, 2017

jyutzler added a commit to jyutzler/geopackage that referenced this issue Jun 2, 2017

@jyutzler

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jyutzler commented Jun 3, 2017

I added a requirement that mandates that the tile boundaries be correct in the tile matrix set table but I don't have an ATS for it.

jyutzler added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 6, 2017

Merge pull request #367 from jyutzler/i366
#366 clarifying tile matrix set extents, adding R144

@jyutzler jyutzler closed this Jun 6, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment