On Thu, December 22, 2005 12:38 pm, Martin Spott wrote:
> Hello Jon, I hope you didn't get me wrong:
>
> Martin Spott wrote:
>
>> I see that SWBD might have slightly more detail in certain areas as it
>> follows even small quay walls but the "staircase mode" in SWBD makes it
>> insuitable for creating FlightGear shorelines right out of the box. It
>> may well be recommended to use SWBD as a reference for those who intend
>> to modify scenery around coastal sites.
>
> I didn't mean to be harsh about your proposal. I just think we have to
> realize that there's still much to be done before we can profit from
> SWBD for our purpose:

No, I realise there's a lot of work involved before it can be used - not
least because we'd need to derive land polygons from data which currently
defines water polygons, as well as smoothing the data. It's not something
that's gonna make this release, unless there's a version of the data for
which this work has already been done.

I grabbed the shapefiles for the gshhs v1.3 release last night - I'll
throw it into mapserver and see how it compares to vmap0 and SWBD - it may
be that we'd gain very little for the amount of work involved, in which
case we can skip it and stick with GSHHS in the longer term.

-- 
Jon Stockill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Reply via email to