>>
>>Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 08:28:09 +0300
>>From: Tomas Straupis <tomasstrau...@gmail.com>
  >>Anyways, there is no point of talking about who first, last, only
>>etc. All approaches using closed commercial software are pointless for
>>OSM - it cannot be reused. Everything can be done with open source so
>>that all code/algorithms are open and clear and there is no need to
>>pay piles of money for nothing.
>>
The statement was not quite wise and in some aspects it is wrong. Blindly 
trusting open source solutions is not the best thing for a newcomer especially 
not for a developer. By experience I know that sometimes a hint, a simple 
warning may help a developer to change his way of thinking. Besides, reading 
someone’s complex and complicated source (like the generalisation related 
source) is not just a simple exercise. If you ever wrote a complex basic sw and 
tried to read it after several months of brake then you understand what is my 
point.
The vector data generalisation issue was many times up for discussion on this 
forum too, in years. Because the vector map-making is not in the OSM’s strategy 
(an official authority answer from some times ago) the issue may be of interest 
only to private persons and institutions. However, some generalization issues 
yet my be of interest for OSM. After all, the majority of the source data has 
vector interpretation.
If we agree that a vector data generalisation is a procedure applied to a 
downscaled source vector data that performs vector smoothing and object (or 
part of object) collapse, then we may add some comments to the referenced mail.
Generalisation of questions like first, best and so on might be incorrect. For 
instance, the vector smoothing (sometimes called simplification) algorithms are 
known from the end 1980s and beginning of 1990s. In many countries at that time 
started raster-to-vector transformation of the scanned data layer foils of the 
mapping authorities. These vector smoothing algorithms radically evolved in 
years by experimental adjustments of many parameters. The best ones are those 
using dynamic smoothing criterion - when to replace a series of consecutive 
vectors with a resultant vector. Obviously, if a smoothing algorithm works well 
on cadastre/land-office data (usually long vectors without fine detail 
curvatures) it those not necessarily mean that it will work well on data with 
many fine curvature details like hydrographic data.
However, my major point here is to underline the big difference between doing 
data generalisation on OSM data and government institution data. Namely, the 
natural object fragmentation in the OSM source data inevitably causes data 
generalization problems, no matter what kind and how advanced the applied model 
is. Simply, without a defragmentation (the whole object reconstruction) in the 
data preparation a correct and efficient collapse strategy is impossible. To 
avoid repetitions from related discussions in the past I will just present some 
illustrative arguments. Most of the examples are screen dump images from today 
(it is an important reason why images and not links).
Object and part-of-object collapse is an essential part of any data 
generalisation (even in pure raster imaging). There are three basic strategies: 
size based, (object) class based and dynamic collapse. Because the size of 
fragments vary arbitrarily (mapper filings dependent), this strategy causes 
inacceptable brakes. For instance look at the Lena river here 
https://osm.org/go/9pITX--  and take one step zoom-out on the same. The same is 
present in many other OSM based maps like here https://goo.gl/2n2ycU and here 
https://goo.gl/FLMZbZ . In case of the class collapse strategy the usual 
asynchronous collapse may create confusion (large objects in one class 
disappear while small objects in another class are still present) like here 
https://goo.gl/Qkvybr and here https://goo.gl/XiSvc7. Finally, just to mention 
again, fragmentation is a vector smoothing killer. As a rule, you cannot  avoid 
the famous stripe effect. This was discussed  and illustrated many times in the 
past and it is difficult to avoid it even in a pure raster rendering. For 
instance look at some stripes here https://goo.gl/T2rUXf (note that the stripes 
are not border/solid lines) or the same stripes in other maps like here 
https://goo.gl/4DkBPb or here https://goo.gl/FcBmhb or even if you do not see 
it the stripe is there, just zoom in like here https://goo.gl/wbmCy5 or here 
https://goo.gl/VaDwaQ. 
In conclusion, applying data generalization on fragmented data is full of traps 
and usually ends up with errors. 
Regards, Sandor.



_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to