Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > > Dirk-Lüder Kreie wrote: >>> Did I miss something? I thought the server was supposed to be >>> responsible >>> for all low zoom stitching these days... >> >> Yes, that should be the case currently, although I don't mind the >> clients taking over some of this work. > > Currently the server stitches everything as before, but some people seem > to be uploading client-side stitched tiles. > > If that works out nicely, I would be more than happy to have the lowzoom > requests handed out to clients by the server. > > spaetz > > _______________________________________________ > Tilesathome mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome > >
Hi everyone, I think that I'm the one, who is responsible for those faded tiles :) There are not many requests in the queue right now, so my machine was idling all day and I thought that it could do something useful instead. Moreover, I noticed some problems in low-zoom tiles on the map so I tried to render them on my client (it was Tile 6,32,21). The output looked fine, so I uploaded the tiles on the server. But then I realized, that the colors look somehow different (as some of you noted, they look faded or washed out). I'm sorry for the confusion that my action has caused. Isn't it possible to use the same code base for client and server-side low-zoom stitching so that the output looks identical? Regards, Tim -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/East-Anglia-has-faded-tp20780501p20798191.html Sent from the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
