[OSM-talk-be] AGIV watuning

[A.Pirard]

On 2013-03-18 19:53, Jo wrote :
> zoom in on the area of interest on this site:
>
> http://ogc.beta.agiv.be/gdiviewer/?simple=true
That  viewer issues requests like this:
http://grb.agiv.be/geodiensten/raadpleegdiensten/geocache/tms/1.0.0/orthoklm@BPL72VL/13/4828/3716.png
(for some beta time anyway)

The zoom goes up to 15, but the maximum resolution it at 13 (as shown) 
after which the server stretches the image (scales it).
These are nonstandard zoom levels to which JOSM's zoom level should be 
adjusted.
JOSM configuration should be
tms:http://grb.agiv.be/geodiensten/raadpleegdiensten/geocache/tms/1.0.0/orthoklm@WGS84VL/{zoom-*z*}/{x}/{y}.png
But I was unable to find a working *z*.  That's always the problem with 
TMS when it's not standard.
x and y could be swapped or x be bottom up, etc... A puzzle if it's not 
documented.
The advantage of TMS is that the images (tiles) are not modified by the 
server.

Anyway, the corresponding WMS configurations are:

wms:http://grb.agiv.be/geodiensten/raadpleegdiensten/geocache/?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.1.1&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&STYLES=&SRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}&LAYERS=orthoklmx

It seems to me to have fairly the same resolution as the viewer.
Don't forget to right-click-change resolution on the layer, especially 
after you zoomed in.

wms:http://grb.agiv.be/geodiensten/raadpleegdiensten/geocache/?FORMAT=image/png&VERSION=1.1.1&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&STYLES=&SRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}&TRANSPARENT=YES&LAYERS=grb_bsk,grb_gbg,grb_sel,grb_adp

png is (much) better for the grb_* and jpeg for the orthos (equivalent 
but smaller images).
Unfortunately, the grb images are not transparent (as in Wallonie).
I still used &TRANSPARENT=YES in case they would.
Play with the layers' transparency if you need so.
> compare the maximum resolution after you
> Install a wms layer on JOSM:
> I used this uri, but maybe it can be 'optimised':
>
> wms[12]:http://wms.agiv.be/ogc/wms/omkl?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.1.1&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=Ortho&STYLES=&SRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox} 
> <http://wms.agiv.be/ogc/wms/omkl?FORMAT=image/jpeg&VERSION=1.1.1&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=Ortho&STYLES=&SRS=%7Bproj%7D&WIDTH=%7Bwidth%7D&HEIGHT=%7Bheight%7D&BBOX=%7Bbbox%7D>
>
> The 12 between [] stands for the maximum zoom level. I tried with 
> values of 19, 21, 25, but it doesn't seem to have any effect. So I 
> guess one could also simply omit it.
The zoom limit prevents querying servers that return blank or error 
images when the resolution limit is exceeded.
If you can determine the JOSM zoom level corresponding to the resolution 
limit (13 for TMS) you can use it.
This will prevent uselessly getting stretched images from the server 
when JOSM itself can stretch them to the screen.
> I also tried to use it as tms layer, but no luck with that either.
Did you have the same problem as I did (no image at any speed) or another?
Tell me how you could get TMS working, anyone.
>
> Thanks for having a look at it.
>
> It's great to have 2 imagery sources. For some places it works like a 
> time machine. For others sometimes Bing is clearer, ofthen AGIV is 
> more revealing, as they had the good sense to shoot pictures in 
> wintertime, when there is less foliage on the trees.
It's even greater to have more ;-)  All sorts of maps can help figuring 
what one sees on a photo :-)
Beware of Bing's error offset. Always zoom out to check or... check with 
another map.
> At the maximum possible resolution it would be just about perfect.
I hope it will.  Tell me.  Have fun.

Cheers,

Rambo.


> Jo
>
> Op 18 maart 2013 19:18 schreef A.Pirard.Papou 
> <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com <mailto:A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>> het volgende:
>
>     On 2013-03-12 08:13, Jo wrote :
>
>         Anderzijds is het wel wat vreemd dat wat JOSM in de WMS-laag
>         laat zien duidelijk een lagere resolutie heeft, dan wat er op
>         de website van AGIV zelf zichtbaar is. Het klinkt misschien
>         wat ondankbaar, maar weten dat er betere kwaliteit beschikbaar
>         is en het dan met minder duidelijke beelden moeten doen, is
>         toch wat frustrerend.
>
>         Het zou wel kunnen dat de URI die we gebruiken niet
>         geoptimaliseerd is. Ik zal dit ook eens op josm-dev posten en
>         dan vraag ik tegelijk hoe we ervoor kunnen zorgen dat JOSM
>         deze laag zelf voorstelt aan mappers die data voor Vlaanderen
>         afhalen/bewerken.
>
>     I may have a look if you say which are the URLs you're comparing.
>
>     The ranter.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20130319/3a48a932/attachment.htm>