"Curtis Olson" wrote:
> I still would like to find a way to move back to the GSHHS data set if we
> can figure out a way to resolve problems with combining that data set with
> VMAP0 freshwater data (which often conflicts with GSHHS ... things GSHHS
> considers freshwater might be considered outside political boundaries in
> VMAP0 and visa versa so you can't marry the two data sets cleanly.)
I'm quite aware of these implications - this is what I've been pulling
together into the "due to the corresponding landuse data"- phrase. It's
not only about freshwater, basically this affects any sort of ground
coverage that is meant to match the coastline.
<OFF TOPIC>: As (probably just a) few of you know I've started
planning, installing and improving the required infrastructure to
store, visualize, compare, merge and edit different datasets four or
five years before now (even before OSM got public ....). I've also been
inspecting numerous datasets (including several coastlines),
investigating methods for editing the data remotely and spending quite
a lot of time on other involved stuff.
In "FlightGear slang" (TM) I'm therefore to be considered as being a
"mere lurker" :-))) </OFF TOPIC>
Even though I've been advertizing this side project occasionally, it
has seen just very limited attention and support from other FlightGear
fellows (I know that I'm bad at advertizing ;-))
Every time I've been gathering for support, people typically fell back
into silence (the usual procedure) .... and as long as the few
involved people have to do _everything_ themselves, things proceed
still steadily, but slowly. If there were some fellows ready to jump
into this effort without asking for a readily usuable graphical
interface unless they move their little finger, we could already have
VMap0 landuse and GSHHS (or whichever) coastline merged together.
BUT, the story about merging vector data is still not right on topic.
Your response lacks an explanation why you consider it as being
impractical to blend the bathymetry data against the coastline in the
same manner as we're currently dealing with the SRTM elevation grid.
> Sorry, didn't mean to press the wrong button here, but just wanted to
> provide some realistic feedback.
No, you didn't push the wrong button, you've simply trying to discredit
my effort and ideas without proper evaluation.
Regards,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
