I understand the desire for transparency, but I'm not entirely sure
how we see it being used.
I am very much a believer that when something is really required ... ways
will be found.
For example: why exclud a mixed format approach jpg / png (for no-data
areas) for those who really require transparency?
http://tileservice.net/dstile2-ol/spherical-mercator.html?zoom=12&lat=42.82814&lon=-78.46676&layers=B000FT
For some transparency might be a necessity and it is precisely for this
reason that I would suggest as a general guideline
"if it can be viewed with OpenLayers then it's ok".
ciao
Maurizio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Schmidt" <[email protected]>
To: "Maurizio" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Schuyler Erle" <[email protected]>; "talk" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OAM-talk] a dramatically simplified technical proposal
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:28:55AM +0200, Maurizio wrote:
Thanks for the outline.
Image tiles should be 256x256 pixels in 8- or 24-bit compressed PNG
format
Being a tile person my main concern is that tile format is being too
tightly restricted leaving out the vast majority of image tile formats
currently in use:
I agree with this, for two reasons:
1. It doesn't match anything else.
2. It's a very poor match for photographic imagery.
I understand the desire for transparency, but I'm not entirely sure
how we see it being used. Other than that use case, JPG is a far better
format for delivery of data; it will be a huge cost savings in bandwidth
alone, and is the 'standard' for delivery of photographic data, so doing
anything else feels wrong.
Regards,
--
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://openaerialmap.org/mailman/listinfo/talk_openaerialmap.org
