Hi,

Without a mapfile and data and configurations which could be used for 
re-producing your issue it is hard to guess what happens. Some suggestions:

Make two QGIS WMS connections to your MapServer, one for both versions. If the 
result is good, then Mapserver is good. If the result is bad, you can capture 
the GetMap requests from the QGIS log window.
If Mapserver is good but Mapserver+Mapcache not, log the GetMap requests that 
Mapcache is sending.

The vendor option "map_resolution" 
https://mapserver.org/ogc/wms_server.html#vendor-specific-wms-parameters  does 
have on effect on the size of the labels, but it is not used in your example 
GetMaps.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

________________________________________
Lähettäjä: MapServer-users <[email protected]> käyttäjän 
Philippe Ghesquiere via MapServer-users <[email protected]> 
puolesta
Lähetetty: Torstai 19. helmikuuta 2026 11.33
Vastaanottaja: TC Haddad <[email protected]>
Kopio: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Aihe: Re: [MapServer-users] WMS with a GPKG-based layer : different responses, 
dependending on version (1.1.1 vs 1.3.0)

Hi Tanya,I wouldn't say Mapserver has limited support for WMS V1.3.0. I would 
rather bet for some parameters I have not set.PhilippeP.S. : you should answer 
to "all" so that the whole list can benefit from the discussion, and the 
possible solution.On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 9:45 AM TC Haddad 
<[email protected]> wrote:Understood and makes sense.I note that the MapCache 
documentation says there is limited support for WMS 1.3.0, so perhaps you 
should try sending the 1.3.0 request directly to MapServer as a test to confirm 
that the problem is coming from MapCache…TanyaOn Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 12:41 AM 
Philippe Ghesquiere <[email protected]> wrote:Dear Tanya,I agree 
with you. I have no problems with WMTS requests, since they explicitly specify 
the expected zoom level.However, our server has to expose WMS services, and I 
do not know which WMS version our potential clients will request.Thus, our 
server parameters need to be adapted in order to serve images with correct 
content, whatever the version.SincerelyPhilippeOn Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 9:11 AM 
TC Haddad <[email protected]> wrote:Hi Philippe,Apologies if I misunderstood, 
but If your GPKG contains tiles and you are using Mapcache, then you could try 
using WMTS to request the tiles. That way you should get them as rendered 
(instead of re-rendered for single-image returned from WMS).TanyaOn Wed, Feb 
18, 2026 at 11:48 PM Philippe Ghesquiere via MapServer-users 
<[email protected]> wrote:Hi Jukka,The  https://pasteboard.co 
server was down yesterday. It's up again this morning :-)You can see the "WMS 
V1.3.0" is not readable.I also noticed there was no problem with  
demo.mapserver.org WMS examples. I believe these links are "vector based", just 
like this one 
:https://demo.mapserver.org/cgi-bin/umn?SERVICE=WMS&VERSION=1.3.0&REQUEST=GetMap&BBOX=44.97440639080338087,-93.19614722958594655,44.9933979530691488,-93.16564743649665559&CRS=EPSG:4326&WIDTH=1023&HEIGHT=637&LAYERS=osm-mn&STYLES=&FORMAT=image/png&DPI=96&MAP_RESOLUTION=96&FORMAT_OPTIONS=dpi:96&TRANSPARENT=TRUEI
 really wonder what parameters (or lack of) may change responses between WMS 
responses.SincerelyPhilippeOn Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 2:30 PM Rahkonen Jukka 
<[email protected]> wrote:Hi,I could not access your sample 
images. I do not know if demo.mapserver.org is GPKG based, but I do not see any 
difference between these two 
outputs:https://demo.mapserver.org/cgi-bin/wms?SERVICE=WMS&VERSION=1.1.0&REQUEST=GetMap&BBOX=4.735,33.118,8.641,38.769&SRS=EPSG%3A4326&WIDTH=490&HEIGHT=709&LAYERS=cities&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fpng&DPI=144&MAP_RESOLUTION=144&FORMAT_OPTIONS=dpi%3A144&TRANSPARENT=TRUEhttps://demo.mapserver.org/cgi-bin/wms?SERVICE=WMS&VERSION=1.3.0&REQUEST=GetMap&BBOX=33.118,4.735,38.769,8.641&CRS=EPSG%3A4326&WIDTH=490&HEIGHT=709&LAYERS=cities&STYLES=&FORMAT=image%2Fpng&DPI=144&MAP_RESOLUTION=144&FORMAT_OPTIONS=dpi%3A144&TRANSPARENT=TRUE-Jukka
 Rahkonen-________________________________________Lähettäjä: MapServer-users 
<[email protected]> käyttäjän Philippe Ghesquiere via 
MapServer-users <[email protected]> puolestaLähetetty: 
Keskiviikko 18. helmikuuta 2026 11.37Vastaanottaja: MapServer Users 
<[email protected]>Aihe: [MapServer-users] WMS with a GPKG-based 
layer : different responses, dependending on version (1.1.1 vs 1.3.0)Hi all,1) 
Problem description:Our system is offering an OSM layer, based on a WGS84 GPKG 
(Z=0 to Z=13).I sent two WMS requests, where the only difference is the 
standard version :WMS V1.1.1 
request:https://xxx/layers/baselayers/wms?service=WMS&version=1.1.1&request=GetMap&Layers=osm_4326&Styles=&SRS=EPSG:4326&Format=image/png&BBOX=45,22.5,67.5,45&Width=1024&Height=1024WMS
 V1.3.0 
request:https://xxx/layers/baselayers/wms?service=WMS&version=1.3.0&request=GetMap&Layers=osm_4326&Styles=&CRS=EPSG:4326&Format=image/png&BBOX=22.5,45,45,67.5&Width=1024&Height=1024
  I observe some differences :V1.1.1: 
https://pasteboard.co/JjKbU4yvSxrM.png,Labels are easy to read: 
mapcache/mapserver is selecting the right zoom level in the GPKG file.V1.3.0: 
https://pasteboard.co/XzpHSJjSTiQV.png.Labels are much too small and not 
readable. It seems that mapcache/mapserver is selecting a higher zoom level 
than expected and down-sample the image.I do not understand why the rendering 
is not the same.As far as I know, WMS requests do not have standard parameters 
which give a *direct* access to zoom layer, resolution or DPI.I tried to add 
some parameters to my request, with no impact on the response: 
DPI=240MAP_RESOLUTION=240FORMAT_OPTIONS=dpi:240.I also tried to add parameters 
in the "MAP block":RESOLUTIONDEFRESOLUTION2) Software environment:Mapserver 
8.2.0Mapcache 1.14.0Gdal V3.8.4Alma Linux V83) Map file excerptMAP    NAME 
"baselayers_wms"    STATUS ON    SIZE 256 256    EXTENT -180.0 -90.0 180.0 90.0 
   UNITS dd#    DEFRESOLUTION 200#    RESOLUTION  144    PROJECTION        
"init=epsg:4326"    END4) My questions:Why do I get different responses between 
V1.1.1 and V1.3.0 WMS requests ?Are there any configuration parameters which 
have default values in one version and not in the other ?I would be glad to 
have some hints to get better WMS 1.3.0 responsesSincerelyPhilippeThe 
information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed 
or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone 
else is unauthorised.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify 
Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail.Airbus cannot accept any 
responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been 
sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this 
message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately.All 
outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning 
software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to 
ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free.The information in 
this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by 
anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is 
unauthorised.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus 
immediately and delete this e-mail.Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for 
the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public 
networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its 
Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately.All outgoing e-mails 
from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you 
should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this 
message and any attachments are virus 
free._______________________________________________MapServer-users mailing 
[email protected]https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-usersThe
 information in this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed 
or used by anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone 
else is unauthorised.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify 
Airbus immediately and delete this e-mail.Airbus cannot accept any 
responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been 
sent over public networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this 
message or its Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately.All 
outgoing e-mails from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning 
software but you should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to 
ensure that this message and any attachments are virus free.The information in 
this e-mail is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by 
anyone other than the addressee. Access to this e-mail by anyone else is 
unauthorised.If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Airbus 
immediately and delete this e-mail.Airbus cannot accept any responsibility for 
the accuracy or completeness of this e-mail as it has been sent over public 
networks. If you have any concerns over the content of this message or its 
Accuracy or Integrity, please contact Airbus immediately.All outgoing e-mails 
from Airbus are checked using regularly updated virus scanning software but you 
should take whatever measures you deem to be appropriate to ensure that this 
message and any attachments are virus free.
_______________________________________________
MapServer-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users

Reply via email to