Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

QGIS server: the good, the not-so-good and the ugly

6.425 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Fiona Hemsley-Flint's presentation on QGIS Server given at the 6th Scottish QGIS UK user group meeting. Compares QGIS server with Mapserver and Geognosis.

Publicado en: Tecnología
  • Sé el primero en comentar

QGIS server: the good, the not-so-good and the ugly

  1. 1. QGIS Server: The Good, the Not-so- Good and the Ugly Fiona Hemsley-Flint EDINA
  2. 2. Digimap • Online mapping portal for data from: • Available to HE and FE • Currently 22,000 active users • 25 million screen maps in last year • 500,000 print requests per year
  3. 3. Current Architecture TileCache On-screen MapsPrint Maps Data Files & GeognoSIS
  4. 4. Investigation • Does QGIS Server have the potential to replace our current proprietary server? • Requirements: • Excellent quality cartography • Able to produce PDF for printing • Performant, scalable & reliable • Allow user customisation of maps • [Easy(ish) to use]
  5. 5. QGIS Server • Open source WMS, WFS and WCS • FastCGI/CGI (Common Gateway Interface) application written in C++ • Uses QGIS as backend for the GIS logic and for map rendering • WMS extra parameters (dpi, opacities, filter, selection)
  6. 6. The Set-up • Installed on a CentOS 7 virtual machine • Create a QGIS project file in QGIS Desktop • Upload file to server • Make a wms request to QGIS Server… http://dm-geo- test.edina.ac.uk/wms/bgs_sld_demo?SERVICE=WMS &LAYERS=Geology%2050k%20Rock%20Unit%20with% 20sld &TRANSPARENT=true &VERSION=1.1.1 &REQUEST=GetMap &STYLES= &FORMAT=image%2Fpng &SRS=EPSG%3A27700 &BBOX=176097.792,645691.904,178355.456,647949.5 68 &WIDTH=256 &HEIGHT=256
  7. 7. The Challenge • Replicate cartographic style for: • BGS’s DiGMapGB-50 • OS’s Open Map Local in our greyscale styling • Replicate our current A4 print template • Options for map customisation • Test performance
  8. 8. BGS’s DiGMapGB-50: GeognoSIS © NERC
  9. 9. BGS’s DiGMapGB-50: QGIS Server © NERC
  10. 10. Ordnance Survey Open Map Local: GeognoSIS © Crown copyright and database right 2016
  11. 11. Ordnance Survey Open Map Local: QGIS Server © Crown copyright and database right 2016
  12. 12. Line Symbology GeognoSIS QGIS
  13. 13. Polygon Fills GeognoSIS QGIS
  14. 14. Labelling
  15. 15. Labelling
  16. 16. Cartography: Summary • Good: • Can replicate styles • Import as SLD • Has additional features missing in GeognoSIS • Not So Good: • Can be a bit complex to get spacing and scaling correct on linework • Ugly: • WMS tiling results in edge effects on labels and polygon fill patterns
  17. 17. Printing
  18. 18. Printing
  19. 19. Printing: Summary • Good: • It is possible! • Not So Good: • Seems rather complicated to get bbox/scale correct • Scale bar tricky to get right, but we have had to do some customisation to GeognoSIS for this too. • Ugly: • Dodgy minutes in time report
  20. 20. Map Customisation
  21. 21. Map Customisation
  22. 22. Map Customisation: GeognoSIS LAYERS= G50_brk, G50_agd, G50_mmov, G50_ln_ft LAYERS= G50_brk, G50_agd, G50_mmov, G50_sdp
  23. 23. Map Customisation: QGIS LAYERS= v_geology50k_runit_bedrock, v_geology50k_runit_artificial, v_geology50k_runit_mass_move, Linear LAYERS= v_geology50k_runit_bedrock, v_geology50k_runit_artificial, v_geology50k_runit_mass_move, v_geology50k_runit_superficial
  24. 24. Map Customisation: MapModeller
  25. 25. Map Customisation: QGIS Desktop
  26. 26. Map Customisation: Summary • Good: • It is possible • Not So Good: • It’s quite complex, and potentially hard to implement and retain levelling • Ugly: • Not much, but reminds me that you can’t call mixed geometry tables in QGIS
  27. 27. Performance: BGS DiGMapGB50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 ResponseTime(seconds) Request QGIS vs GeognoSIS Server response times QGIS GeognoSIS
  28. 28. Performance: Open Map Local 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 20 40 60 80 ResponseTime(seconds) Request GeognoSIS QGIS MapServer ~~ QGIS vs GeognoSIS Server vs MapServer response times
  29. 29. Performance Summary • Good: • It seems to be reliable and doesn’t crash • Not So Good: • Not as performant as GeognoSIS or MapServer • Ugly: • The ‘start-up lag’ – very slow response times for the first set of requests.
  30. 30. What Next? • Try implementing more datasets – especially more complex ones such as Marine and MasterMap • Ask the experts for advice re. performance • Follow developments of QGIS Server with move out of QGIS 3 base code (see forum thread: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis- developer/2016-September/044812.html)
  31. 31. Conclusions • Unfortunately, not viable as is • Needs SE effort either by us or pay community to do it • Would be great to see something come out of the discussion in the forum • Really would like to be able to use it!
  32. 32. Other Users Faunalia
  33. 33. fiona.flint@ed.ac.uk digimap.edina.ac.uk
  34. 34. Resources • http://docs.qgis.org/2.14/en/docs/user_manual/ working_with_ogc/ogc_server_support.html • http://hub.qgis.org/projects/quantum- gis/wiki/QGIS_Server_Tutorial • https://anitagraser.com/2012/04/06/qgis-server- on-windows7-step-by-step/

×