[gkneighb]

Description

The Spearfish RGB example in r.out.vtk.{md,html} points at http://wms.jpl.nasa.gov/wms.cgi with layer global_mosaic. That host stopped serving years ago, so the example no longer runs.

This PR swaps in the NASA GIBS WMS endpoint and a permanent layer, and updates the r.in.wms invocation from the old mapserver= parameter to the current url= parameter:

-r.in.wms layers=global_mosaic mapserver=http://wms.jpl.nasa.gov/wms.cgi \
-         output=wms_global_mosaic
+r.in.wms layers=BlueMarble_ShadedRelief_Bathymetry \
+         url=https://gibs.earthdata.nasa.gov/wms/epsg4326/best/wms.cgi \
+         output=wms_blue_marble

The downstream r.out.vtk rgbmaps=... line is updated to match the new output base name. Same change applied to both r.out.vtk.md and r.out.vtk.html (kept in sync per AGENTS.md).

Motivation and context

Fixes #4844.

How has this been tested?

• Confirmed the old URL is unreachable (curl timeout).
• Confirmed the new endpoint returns HTTP 200 and that BlueMarble_ShadedRelief_Bathymetry is present in the GIBS WMS GetCapabilities response.
• Confirmed url= is the current r.in.wms parameter name by reading scripts/r.in.wms/r.in.wms.py.
• Did not run the example end-to-end — would need an installed GRASS plus the Spearfish sample dataset, which I don't have set up locally. Happy to redo with a screenshot if a reviewer can spot-check.

Screenshots (if appropriate)

None — see the testing caveat above.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Checklist

• PR title provides summary of the changes and starts with one of the pre-defined prefixes
• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires a change to the documentation. (this is a docs change)
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes. (N/A — docs only)

AI-assisted by Claude Code.

[echoix]

Can you check this PR: #4897. It was already reviewed a couple rounds and was almost ready to merge, but was missing a round. Also, another recent (duplicate) PR exists #7372. All of them are linked in the issue you found (good first issue label), so you could always take a look at the existing PRs before starting work, and adding a new one to review

[gkneighb]

Apologies for the duplicate — I should have checked the existing PRs linked from #4844 before opening this. Closing in favor of the prior work (#4897 by @rohannallamadge, which has earlier review history; and #7372 by @mvanhorn). Happy to help close those out via review comments if useful, but I won't add a third duplicate to the queue.

Thanks for the feedback @echoix.

[echoix]

What I wouldn’t mind though, if #7372 isn’t already doing that, is to take the branch of #4897 as the starting point of your branch in your fork, keep his commits as is for attribution, and refresher the PR, and address the remaining review needed. Yes, it’ll end up being a completely separate PR, but at least merging it will close all of them.
keep in mind docs changed a bit since, I dong think markdown docs existed back then