>From a cursory look, it seems to be working to me. I question your use of encoded polygons though. For such small polygons, it might just be better to use unencoded polygons as they process faster. The only real benefit to using encoded polygons is that you can limit what points show depending on the zoom level. This works well for large polygons with many points, but for small ones with a few points, it adds unneeded complexity. Each encoded polygon has to be convered back into standard coordinate notation before it can be processed, this adds extra processing time for no gain.
You're already passing the standard coordinates along with the encoded ones, so there is no savings in bandwidth for using encoded polygons, not that it would amount to much with so few points. -John Coryat http://maps.huge.info http://www.usnaviguide.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
