-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Advertise stricter constraints of tilesets? #119
Comments
This is not a requirement for the 2D Tile Matrix Set standard, but it is a practice of most TileMatrixSet definitions.
Again not a requirement, but a common practice.
I think from a client perspective, you first make a decision whether you want to:
If you decide to support generic TileMatrixSets, then you can decide on what particular constraints you wish to support. By not defining any particular constraints, the specifications really leave it up to the client implementer who knows best what constraints they want to establish when negotiating support for particular tile matrix sets to achieve the best interoperability / complexity balance in their implementations.
I agree this is a good use case. As discussed in opengeospatial/2D-Tile-Matrix-Set#29, a future version of 2DTMS could pave the way for this capability in OGC API - Tiles. Thanks! P.S.: If I were myself to start quickly writing a client from scratch, I would probably focus only on implementing support for the specific common TileMatrixSets WorldCRS84Quad [definition] and/or WebMercatorQuad [definition], which are widely supported by most server implementations (at least for those serving collections available in multiple TileMatrixSets). That is, until everyone including yourself eventually agrees that the variable width alternative to WorldCRS84Quad [definition] is the ultimate TileMatrixSet to rule them all! ;) |
SWG 2022-06-15: We discussed this issue and decided that since the client can easily detect whether these constraints apply to any available tilesets, a change is not required. Defining additional restrictions would require breaking changes to the 2D Tile Matrix Set standard that was already approved. |
I'm writing this during the May 2022 workshop, from the point of view of a client implementer.
I'm struggling to come up with a simple client implementation ("simple" as in "not a lot of code") for the spec. I'm of the opinion that the spec tries to cover a lot of generic use cases, at the expense of implementation complexity.
In particular, client implementations would benefit from having a stricter set of constraints, such as:
tileWidth
/tileHeight
for all matrices in a TileMatrixSetpointOfOrigin
for all matrices in a TileMatrixSetThese constraints are, from a client perspective, nice to know: a client can choose to only support constrained tilesets. The constrains are easy to understand, and I guess servers would not have a hard time advertising whether the tiles of a collection comply with these constraints.
But at the same time, this would make the specification itself more complicated: more metadata fields, maybe more conformance classes. So I'm unsure whether this is a good idea or not.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: