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 algorithm used is very non-sophisticated leading to the geometries shown. Tracing higher resolution images at higher resolution and running Douglas-Peucker over it will likely not produce good results either (you will get the typical jagged corners). Those cases where good results were achieved with scanaerial seem to be using relatively low resolution images processed at a much higher resolution - like here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/68.8084/160.9188 -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
