Locus Free beta - WMTS support

Piotr Tymiński shared this question 2 months ago
Answered

Possible bug in Locus Free beta:

User-defined waypoints/POI normally stick to the map, i.e. when you move the map with your finger, they stay in place and naturally move with the map. This is not the case with WMTS layer. When zoomed out waypoints (and the map) behave normally, but at bigger zooms the map moves but the waypoints sort of float over tha map, which is moving beneath them.


WMTS address used (Polish Geoportal) is:

http://mapy.geoportal.gov.pl/wss/service/WMTS/guest/wmts/ISOK_CIEN?request=GetCapabilities&service=WMTS


Number of waypoints used with WMTS layer is usually in the range 150 - 350, usually it seldom exceeds 300.


Sample movie attached.

Comments (7)

photo
1

Hi,

does it really happen only with WMTS service? I mean - does it happen also with other WMS or simple online map? Would you please hide almost all points (keep visible about 10 points) - is it better or the same?

BR Petr

photo
1

Yes, as far as I noticed it happens only with WMTS. WMS and regular Locus maps (downloaded form Locus store) do not seem to be affected. The number of displayed waypoints do not seem to have any influence, be it 5, 10 or 200, it is the very same effect.

According to today's info on Geoportal, there is some breakdown over there, so testing WMS and WMTS today may be difficult, since no new tiles are loaded. This is actually good, becaue it means (as far as I understand it) Locus is using cached tiles and again WMTS at larger zoom makes waypoint float over the map. This does not happen with cached WMS.

photo
1

Actually, tracklogs "float" above the WMTS layer, too.

photo
1

Here's link to my video with problem displayed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1THHgux1iEDn50COTJda6W5H7thc6pFGN/view

photo
1

Hi,

unfortunate;y we have to close this ticket as unsolved. I'm sorry but we can't solved it and there isn't any quick solution. Due this fact is official support for WMTS postponed indefinitely.

Thank you for understanding.

photo
1

I understand that pinpoiting a source of the "floating" problem may be a pain, since the bug is a bit odd one - it only appears at bigger zoom levels on WMTS layer (ISOK). Zoomed-out views do not seem to be affected. There was no opacity control for WMTS in the beta version but I wonder (purely as a mental excercise) what would happen if there was such control, i.e. WMTS layer could be used at some opacity with regular Locus map from the store. Would the regular map keep the waypoints/tracks "pinned" to proper place then?

Still, even viewing WMTS layers from within Locus (even with current bug) is a boost, since it eliminates the need of using another external application like Geoportal app. Having the layer enabled in Locus simplifies our work in the field.

I underastand that huinting for an elusive solution to WMTS problem may stretch your resources at the moment, especially when there are other pressing matters but I sincerly hope that the idea will not be entirely buried but merely shelved, awaiting better oporrtunity to deal with. Can we hope for it?

Will the WMTS browsing be retained in its present shape in the beta versions or you intend to remove it entirely?

Thanks.

photo
1

Hi Menion!

Really great to see that you work on implementing support for wmts layers! This pushes your app to a new level regarding professional or enthusiast users. Have been testing the feature thoroughly and noticed just a single glitch: The Dimension 'Time' in the WMTSGetCapabilities Response seems not to be implemented, it looks something like this:

<Dimension>
<ows:Identifier>Time</ows:Identifier>
<Default>current</Default>
<Value>current</Value>
</Dimension>

Besides that it would be great if one could use the wmts layer as an overlay above (or below) any other map - as it's the case with the other types of maps.

Just one final question: are there multiple threads that fetch the tiles from the server or is this done serially? I would like to know because I write a small wmts-server in Python for personal use that is going to run on my phone. I could spare the hassle of dealing with multiple threads if there was just a single fetcher thread. If it's multithreaded it would be nice to know how many parallel requests my app should be able to handle.


Thanks a lot & keep up your great work

Paul

photo