Hi, Perhaps PNG8 does not have enough many colours for showing the artifacts?
-Jukka Rahkonen- Lime, Steve wrote: > I'm unable to recreate the artifact with a simple test case > though so I'm not exactly sure what's going wrong. This mapfile > defines a couple of overlapping polygons and there is no > rendering issue. > > MAP > SIZE 512 512 > > IMAGETYPE PNG8 > > EXTENT 0 0 1000 1000 > IMAGECOLOR 255 0 0 > > LAYER > NAME "test" > TYPE POLYGON > STATUS DEFAULT > FEATURE > POINTS 100 100 600 100 600 600 100 600 100 100 END > END > FEATURE > POINTS 300 70 800 70 800 800 300 800 300 70 END > END > CLASS > STYLE > COLOR 128 255 255 > # OUTLINECOLOR 0 0 0 > END > END # of class > END # of layer > END > > Online at: > http://maps1.dnr.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/mapserv60?map=/usr/local/ mapserver/apps/test/ocean/test4.map&mode=map > Your original test case (+labels): > http://maps1.dnr.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/mapserv60?map=/usr/local/ mapserver/apps/test/ocean/test.map&mode=map > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: mapserver-users-boun...@lists.osgeo.org > [mailto:mapserver-users-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of > Sven Geggus > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 8:18 AM > To: mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org > Subject: [mapserver-users] Re: polygon border artifacts > > "Lime, Steve D (DNR)" <steve.l...@state.mn.us> wrote: > > > Do outlines fix things at all zoom levels? > > Not really. The Workaround which is working best for now is > using a very big polygon Overlap of 100Meters (Talking about > Google Mercator here) which I feel is way to much and an > outline with of 1. To completely get rid of artifacts I would > need an Outline width of 2, but this is not small enough IMO. > > > What about the possibility of fixing the data? > > The bug is clearly with mapserver here, the data is fine IMO. > The tool used for generation of the tiles does already allow > for generation of arbitrary overlap widths > (https://github.com/joto/osmcoastline/). > > > I mean, unioning the ocean polys into one, or better yet > deriving land > > polygons from that data. > > No, unfortunately both of them are not an Option! > > 1. Unioning the polygons: > I presented a small shapefile just to demonstrate the problem. > The original file I want to use contains ocean tiles covering > the whole world. So this has been spitted into tiles for a reason! > > 2. Land polygons: > These are also not an option because I want to use the ocean > tiles to cover inaccurate hillshading derived from srtm. This > will not work the other way round. > > The only thing I could imagine as a solution on the data side > would be the clipping of the hillshades by means of the polygon shape. > > Regards > > Sven > > -- > TCP/IP: telecommunication protocol for imbibing pilsners > (Man-page uubp(1C) on > Debian/GNU Linux) > > /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web > _______________________________________________ > mapserver-users mailing list > mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users > > > _______________________________________________ > mapserver-users mailing list > mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users > _______________________________________________ mapserver-users mailing list mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users