Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Topology errors in 512px tiles widespread for landuse polygons #95

Open
nvkelso opened this issue Oct 21, 2017 · 4 comments
Open

Topology errors in 512px tiles widespread for landuse polygons #95

nvkelso opened this issue Oct 21, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@nvkelso
Copy link
Member

nvkelso commented Oct 21, 2017

Compared to the 256px tiles I'm seeing many more topology errors and dropped polygons in the 512px tiles. I think this is because after trying to make a polygon "whole" a few times, if we still fail we drop the feature. We need to do a better job to keep the features.

For example, northern California:
http://tangrams.github.io/walkabout-style/#8/40.815/-124.094

512px tiles miss the wilderness areas, but 256px tiles include them:
screen shot 2017-10-20 at 17 15 28
screen shot 2017-10-20 at 17 15 15

At zoom 10 around Eureka, California:
http://tangrams.github.io/walkabout-style/#10/40.7353/-123.9306

512px tiles miss the land areas, but 256px tiles include them:
screen shot 2017-10-20 at 17 16 46
screen shot 2017-10-20 at 17 16 52

At zoom 9 around San Francisco, California:
http://tangrams.github.io/walkabout-style/#9/37.3865/-121.5486

512px tiles miss the land areas, but 256px tiles include them:
screen shot 2017-10-20 at 17 19 13

@nvkelso
Copy link
Member Author

nvkelso commented Oct 21, 2017

@zerebubuth after RAWR settles down let's revisit this topology space.

@nvkelso
Copy link
Member Author

nvkelso commented Oct 21, 2017

Zoom 7 in northern California has a lot of national_forest green areas missing:
http://tangrams.github.io/walkabout-style/#7/40.618/-123.876

screen shot 2017-10-20 at 17 24 03

screen shot 2017-10-20 at 17 23 56

@zerebubuth
Copy link
Member

Related to #87?

@nvkelso
Copy link
Member Author

nvkelso commented Oct 23, 2017

Related to #87?

Looks likely. Leaving this issue open until we can prove the link.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants