Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ImageOverlay behaviour with WG84 rasters #2054

Open
VGuette opened this issue Dec 16, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

ImageOverlay behaviour with WG84 rasters #2054

VGuette opened this issue Dec 16, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@VGuette
Copy link

VGuette commented Dec 16, 2024

I have a non-expected result when using this code (the raster used is attached to this message):

raster_path = '2019-06-15.tiff'
with rasterio.open(raster_path) as src:
    raster_data = src.read(1)
    bounds = src.bounds
    
m = folium.Map(location=[(bounds.top + bounds.bottom) / 2, (bounds.left + bounds.right) / 2], zoom_start=10)

# Create an ImageOverlay
img_overlay = ImageOverlay(
    image=raster_data,
    bounds=[[bounds.bottom, bounds.left], [bounds.top, bounds.right]],
    opacity=0.6,
    interactive=False,
    cross_origin=True,
    zindex=1,
    mercator_project=True
)

# Add the overlay to the map
img_overlay.add_to(m)

m.save('map.html')

Indeed, my result html map presents shapes that are not consistent with the same map I could have just by using QGIS.

For instance the result of this code gives this in a specific region:
image

while using QGIS in an EPSG:3857 projection system gives this:
image

My raster has natively an EPSG:4326 projection system. I suspect the issue comes from how ImageOverlay changes the projection system.

Can anyone reproduce this and explain how I could obtain the same result as in QGIS which is the correct reference for me?

Thanks,
Vivien

2019-06-15.zip

@GratienDSX
Copy link

Same problem on my side.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants