On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:11:51AM -0700, phil rosenberg wrote: > Thanks Alan > I hadn't noticed the missing Antarctica boundary section, I'm not sure why it > should be missing, in one but not the other, but if I'm honest I'm not going > to lose too much sleep if you intend to depreciate the old files anyway. Was > it missing pre patch? > ? > Andrew, re?the bug, I can't remember if I encountered the bug using a > different test shapefile. I think the old logic was if > abs((int)longitude_change)>abs((int)latitude) (where _change is from one > point to the next)then initiate wraparound fixing. Some comments indicated > the intent was that near the poles points were more likely to span large > longitude differences. Near the equator however the system broke down such > that relatively small longitude changes were still bigger than the current > latitude. By (int)ing the values longitude changes less than 1 were rounded > to zero avoiding problems for the current files within 1 degree of the > equator?(by design?). In the test shapefile I used, the straight African > boundaries must have?had point-to-point differences larger than 1 degree so > it all broke down. The current system is as general as I could make it. It > might fall over if someone tries to draw a line >180 degrees, point-to-point, > but I don't think > there is an obvious fix there.
Well if it is not something obvious in the old data sets then probably not worth worrying about. > ? > As for your questions Alan. > ? > I don't have a preference about depreciation period. > ? This really boils down to whether we want to force a shapelib dependency. If we do, then I think we could deprecate the old maps now and maybe remove in the next but one release, so users of releases have at least some warning. Otherwise we seem to be committed to supporting the old version indeterminately to avoid the dependency, which is probably not wise. > I guess the four maps were used to show the different maps that came with > PLplot, can't think of another reason. > ? I think so. The main reason for supplying all 4 shapefiles is for compatibility. At the patch makes no API changes so having the same map files means users whole only use the standard maps will have to make no code changes. They will see slightly better quality maps, but with the same basic information on. > As for a blowaway example - the biggest advantage of using shapefiles is the > access to a huge array of datasets in this format, many of which are much > higher res than the old maps. So I think the 'hook' is either an example > where the user can specify their own shapefile, or an example where we use a > much higher res shapefile that we provide. For the latter case we could > deliberately contrast the old coarse maps with a new higher res one - in > which case the subject would need to be a coasline otherwise it wouldn't be > on the old maps at all. For any Hitchhikers Guide fans out there Norway has a > prize winning coast if memory serves correct. A nice addition would be to supply a "demo" shapefile map in with the examples. This could be a high resolution map for a small area, demonstrating how users might like to add their own maps. Norway could be good. Alternatively one of Phil's examples with a flight track plotted over the SW of the UK would be good and would show how to use the maps as a base for more interesting scientific plots. Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
