Well, isn't this the Discussion phase of the feature request?
And as I mentioned, although it would be great to see this done,
unfortunately we may not be able to make a good case to fund it.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Andrea Aime <andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it>
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Martin Davis <mtncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's another reason why reducing precision of responses on-the-fly
>> would be useful. It turn out the data as stored in EPGS:3005 essentially
>> has 1 m precision. However, we are requesting it reprojected to
>> EPSG:3857. The reprojection creates values using full double precision,
>> which is output by GeoServer. So in this case it is perfectly safe to
>> round back to 1 m precision.
>>
>> We will explore requesting the data in the native CRS, since we can
>> project on the client-side. But it would be nice to be able to do this
>> fully in GeoServer.
>>
>
> By now you should know that just being right about the usefulness of a
> feature request achieves.... exactly nothing ;-)
> See: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/
> Successfully-requesting-and-integrating-new-features-and-
> improvements-in-GeoServer
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-users mailing list
Please make sure you read the following two resources before posting to this
list:
- Earning your support instead of buying it, but Ian Turton:
http://www.ianturton.com/talks/foss4g.html#/
- The GeoServer user list posting guidelines:
http://geoserver.org/comm/userlist-guidelines.html
Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users