On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 01:53:30AM -0700, Paul Norman wrote: > > From: Jochen Topf [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:25 AM > > Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] Coastline changes Antarctica > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:53:16AM -0700, Paul Norman wrote: > > > > From: Jochen Topf [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:17 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] Coastline changes Antarctica > > > > > > > > If tile.osm.org has by now switched to using OSMCoastline and uses a > > > > current version there is no impact. If it still uses coastcheck it > > > > will break. > > > > > > I believe the toolchain on tile.osm.org uses the Feb 8th 2013 version > > > of coastcheck. You'll need to talk to jburgess to make sure you don't > > > break osm.org with your import. > > > > I see you put him on Cc. So, Jon, please speak up if there are any > > issues. > > The I believe was about the version, not about using coastcheck. If it will > break coastcheck as you've said above, it will cause issues on tile.osm.org. > You should not import the -180/180 part until a plan for tile.osm.org has > been worked out. > > However, are you certain it breaks coastcheck if the coastline is oriented > the right way? My understanding was it could use the direction of a > coastline fragment to work out which side was land.
I am not an expert in coastcheck, but I do believe coastcheck still needs a closed polygon to work. Jochen -- Jochen Topf [email protected] http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
