3

I'm trying to connect to this WMTS in QGIS, but I'm having issues that I think are projection related. I use the Add WMS/WMTS dialog and enter this url:

http://www.vernoncounty.org/arcgis/rest/services/VCGISpub/2010_VC_WISCRS_Tiled_Cache/ImageServer/WMTS?

I connect and add the layer, when prompted, I choose WGS84 as the CRS (I know, just wait a second). The Zoom to Layer function zooms to the correct extent, but the image doesn't show up. In the WMTS metadata, the local coordinate system EPSG:103462 is referenced, and the zoom level extents seem to be using that system. However, if I add CRS=EPSG:103462 (I tried the SRS parameter as well) to the request nothing changes, and if I use that projection as the layer CRS in QGIS, the Zoom To Layer function goes to the wrong spot.

So, I think there may be something funny with the way the layer is published, but this is my first use of a WMTS in QGIS so there may be something I'm missing.

1

It seems that QGIS can not handle this WMTS service correctly.

If you look into the metadata section of the layer properties, the Matrix extent in map units and the calculated bounds are wrong.

Usually, WMTS work with EPSG:3857, and QGIS can handle that. Other CRS (especially with us-ft units) might not been implemented properly.

  • Hi @AndreJ, thanks for looking into this. I'll check with the county folks, but, if you have experience with ArcGIS Server, do you know what they would do to fix the problem? Would it be as simple as reprojecting the raster and republishing it? Thanks again. – mr.adam Mar 11 '16 at 15:26
  • I don't have access to ArcGIS Server, but if you follow the links on vernoncounty.org/arcgis/rest/services/VCGISpub/… you can view the service online. It seems that the service is only tested with Arcgis software. You get what you paid for ... – AndreJ Mar 11 '16 at 16:11
  • 1
    BTW Gdal 2.1 can read WMTS Server information, but it does not know EPSG:103462. This is a CRS invented by ESRI and not part of the GDAL CRS database. – AndreJ Mar 11 '16 at 16:45
  • Yeah, I believe that is a projection just for this county. I bet reprojecting to 3857 would be the best step to take... thanks again for the info. – mr.adam Mar 11 '16 at 17:35
  • Alternatively, they could offer the data with a WMS service. This is not bound to a single CRS. – AndreJ Mar 13 '16 at 6:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.