Accidentally sent to Kai only: Hi,
> I have had the impression, that the osmarender/tah layer feels slower to > browse > than e.g. the mapnik layer, so I tried to find out what may be the cause for > that. One of the things I have noticed is that the osmarender tiles are much > bigger than the mapnik tiles, often on the order of 3 to 4 times bigger. > Given > that the difference between a single 100kb tile and a 27kb tile (e.g. z12 of > Karlsruhe) can be noticed even over a reasonably fast dsl connection and > definitely over slower links, it might be a good idea to try and reduce the > tile > size. This would also reduce up and download bandwidth needed by the server. Are you sure that you have not accidentally used a non-pngcrush tile for your comparison? Normally, [EMAIL PROTECTED] puts tiles through pngcrush before they're uploaded. I believe it may be possible to run [EMAIL PROTECTED] without this program so if you used tiles by someone who does not have pngcrush enabled then they'd look very big... If it turned out that even though we use pngcrush we STILL have tiles 3 to 4 times larger than Mapnik's, that would be a reason to bin pngcrush ;-) Mapnik's use of 8bit images is not without problems; sometimes colours look wrong and people have complained about this from time to time. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tilesathome
