2010/7/20 Chris Browet <[email protected]>: > Unless I'm mistaken, I understand the zoom level (as in "way|z1-11") as "OSM > TMS zoom level", right? You may understand it that way if you want to.
> What about maps rendered in another projection than mercator/google, e.g. > OSGB36, which is non-othogonal ? They also have a bbox, and may have tiles (at least virtually), thus, have zoom levels too. > How is the implementation supposed to deduce the zoom level based upon a > pixels per meters zoom level? I guess defining that equator length on z0 is 256 pixels (.26 mm per pixel) should be enough. Or, we may leave that up to implementer. > Extreme, but I tend to think the zoom level namespace selector should be > dropped altogether in favor of the "way|s5000" indicated as example in the > specs, which is far more explicit. That might be an alternative, but I'd prefer keeping zoom levels as-is. If you look at most OSM stylesheets, they first do a conversion of sacle into a zoom level and then use zoom levels as constants in that case. > While, if needed, going to zoom level from a scale in the context of a > mercator projection is easy for the implementation, I don't see how to go > from zoom level to scale consistently for "exotic" projections, given the > restrictive (assumed) definition of the zoom levels... -- Komяpa aka Darafei Praliaskouski xmpp:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] _______________________________________________ Mapcss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/mapcss
