Hi all!
gerard robin wrote:
[SNIP]
> You could notice that apt VHHH is now , not an island but on full ground area
Thanks for the reports.
For your information: From the VHHH-tile I was actually able to identify
the actual trigger for the buggy tiles.
The trigger does lie in the modifications.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
It does indeed look like 0.9.8 had best coast line. Why is it so much worse in
more recent
scenery? Wouldn't it be possible to get the same good coastline as in 0.9.8?
Regards,
Arvid Norlander
gerard robin wrote:
| On jeu 20 mars 2008, gerard rob
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM, AnMaster wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> It does indeed look like 0.9.8 had best coast line. Why is it so much
> worse in more recent
> scenery? Wouldn't it be possible to get the same good coastline as in
> 0.9.8?
As with anything
Hi Curt!
Curtis Olson wrote:
> The decision was made to go with vmap0 entirely. We gave up accuracy
> around the coast lines, but we gained a much more consistent picture of
> the world ... with no major missing bits and no overlapping sections.
Thanks for jumping in with that explanation.
Anyb
One thing to add...
Ralf Gerlich wrote:
> Currently there is no shapefile version of GSHHS 1.5, which was
> available for 1.3, so we need to get some tool to import the custom
> binary format of GSHHS into the database, including the handling of
> shorelines crossing the dateline, etc (e.g. Eurasi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Curtis Olson wrote:
| On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 11:00 AM, AnMaster wrote:
|
|> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|> Hash: SHA512
|>
|> It does indeed look like 0.9.8 had best coast line. Why is it so much
|> worse in more recent
|> scenery? Wouldn't
AnMaster wrote:
> Good question, I guess combining them and manually fixing the problems would
> be too much
> work. I got no really good solution. But the current coastlines are very bad
> in many cases.
>
> What about only using GHSSH for those coastlines around continents? With that
> I mean
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ralf Gerlich wrote:
> AnMaster wrote:
> > Good question, I guess combining them and manually fixing the problems
> would be too much
> > work. I got no really good solution. But the current coastlines are very
> bad in many cases.
> >
> > What about only using GHS
On Friday 21 March 2008 01:07, Innis Cunningham wrote:
> Hi Lee
>
> DETAILS WERE HERE
>
> > On Thursday 20 March 2008 13:29, Innis Cunningham wrote:
> >> Hi Lee
> >>
> >>> Hi Innis,
> >>>
> >>> first of all, I just noticed that your replies are including
> >>> e-mail addresses - if they're not obf
On Friday 21 March 2008 17:13, Curtis Olson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ralf Gerlich wrote:
> > AnMaster wrote:
> > > Good question, I guess combining them and manually fixing the
> > > problems
> >
> > would be too much
> >
> > > work. I got no really good solution. But the current
LeeE writes:
>
> Would it be possible to cobble together a small utility that would
> allow small parcels of the scenery database e.g. 1x1 deg tiles, to
> be checked and corrected manually without setting up the full
> scenery build system? That way, many people could work on it
> whenever th
LeeE wrote:
> So it looks like we either live with the problem until someone else
> creates a new database with all the problems fixed, or bite the
> bullet and fix it manually ourselves.
Yep, that's the spirit ;-)
> Would it be possible to cobble together a small utility that would
> allow sm
Hi Lee
>
> On Friday 21 March 2008 01:07, Innis Cunningham wrote:
>> Hi Lee
>>
>> DETAILS WERE HERE
>>
>>> On Thursday 20 March 2008 13:29, Innis Cunningham wrote:
Hi Lee
> Hi Innis,
>
> first of all, I just noticed that your replies are including
> e-mail addresses -
13 matches
Mail list logo
