Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

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

6,347 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Technology

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/

×