Curtis Olson wrote: > I'm not sure why not having a landmass is a neat side effect? That was > simply a catchall for covering areas not covered by other data -- I could > only see that causing problems if the input is not topologically consistent.
.... indeed, which is the case with stock VMap0. Regarding the neat side effect: When you aim at replacing the rather coarse VMap0 by detailed custom land cover in coastal regions, then you have to do *something* about the landmass. As long as you rely on having a landmass, adjusting this to the new, detailed land cover is a requirement, because otherwise you'll loose the accuracy of your new, shiny coastline. Imagine how long it took me to manually remove the remains of VMap0 after inserting John's custom land cover just at this rather small place here: http://mapserver.flightgear.org/map/?lon=-71.41411&lat=41.57204&zoom=11&layers=B0000000FFFFFFFFTFFFFFFF .... and then think about how long it would take to adjust the landmass accordingly. Therefore I preferred to fill the voids in VMap0 just one single time and to deal with topologically clean data only from this moment. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
