On Wednesday 18 October 2017, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/69.94271/-152.49898
>
> isn't the result of simplification, though, is it? You can see the
> pixels...
Like others here i have no practical experience with scanaerial but it
seems the vectorization
On 18/10/2017 05:49, ANT Berezhnyi wrote:
+10 to what AlaskaDave said
Simplification creates such a crap, as you led me to an example
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/69.94271/-152.49898
isn't the result of simplification, though, is it? You can see the
pixels...
I'd suggest that,
+10 to what AlaskaDave said
I myself want to be beautiful and accurate,
I make with accuracy 1 point on 1..2 meters, on the exact perimeter of the
lake (accuracy 30 ... 50 centimeters from the coastline)
then I am simplifying (because it requires
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/bdistsoe
+1 to what AlaskaDave said.
As far as I can tell in this case, the jaggies are a result of running
ScanAerial on imagery of a low resolution (i.e. zoomed out). At that
level (LandSat resolution), a smooth lake edge looks like a jagged set
of individual pixels, where each pixel is 28 meters
The tracing for that pond ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/532622119) is
horrible IMO. This is the sort of geometry that drives me crazy when I look
at Alaskan coastlines. The long zig-zag at the top edge could be better
done with a few points and the adjoining ponds at the SE are very rough
On Tuesday 17 October 2017, ANT Berezhnyi wrote:
>
> so on the question ...
>
> Is it possible to vectorize the USGS on the OSM if there is no
> Landsat, and everything else in the clouds, or in the snow, or the
> quality is bad ...
There are no parts of the US where there is no better imagery
(sorry for my english)
question:
On 2017-10-16 02:33:13 UTC velmyshanovnyi
http://www.hdyc.neis-one.org/?velmyshanovnyi
wrote:
===
so on the question ...
Is it possible to vectorize the USGS on the OSM if there is no Landsat, and
7 matches
Mail list logo