Add ITwinGeospatialFeaturesRasterOverlay for rasterizing Geospatial Features from iTwin
#1197
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The original
itwin-feature-overlaybranch got pretty messy with all the iterations to all of its dependent branches, so I went ahead and put it back together on a fresh branch. This PR adds aITwinGeospatialFeaturesRasterOverlaythat builds on the support added from the iTwin Geospatial Features API as well as theGeoJsonDocumentRasterOverlayadded invector-rasterizer.Currently, the raster overlay just requests all available geospatial features and merges them together into one GeoJSON document. In theory, it's possible to use the
bboxparameter of the Geospatial Features API to treat it like a tile server, allowing us to stream features rather than loading them all up front. But this adds quite a bit of complexity, and perhaps some undesired tradeoffs (when we're zoomed all the way out, which features do we show and which do we ignore?), so I think it's best to get it in like this and iterate on it if users keep running up against that limitation.