On 01/03/10 13:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2010/1/3 Sebastian Spaeth <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > On 12/23/09 04:09, Micha Ruh wrote: > > May I ask you if there is enough free disk space on the server for > > another lowzoom-layer? (z0-z11). > Containing what exactly? Lowzoom layers don't take much space, so that > should be possible. > > > I guess this would imply an alternative Z12-tileset as source for that > alternative z0-z11-lowzoom-set. It could contain current Z12-features > plus common landuse- and natural-tags (above all forests and woods are > interesting).
In principle, I don't have any objections to that. However, there is one problem with that: the box has plenty of bandwidth, but is a little weak on the CPU side, I think (stitching is mainly CPU an IO bound) And it is continuously stitching anyway, so if we stitch yet another layer we will have to delay stitching the regular lowzoom. But why don't we include woods and lakes and some stuff in the regular low-zoom? I don't have any problems with that and it is worth a try. So if someone modifies the lowzoom style sheet to contain forests etc, we could check how it looks and revert if it's ugly. To sum it up: if a 2nd layer is what people want, we can create it. But I am not particularly in favor of using a 2nd low zoom when we can just modify our 1st one :-). spaetz _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
