Re: [talk-au] Publishing data as vector tiles/something else
Hi Ben I knew about Tippecanoe - and will also give it a go. Thanks for the reminder! Like all unfunded projects the whole idea is prone to being put on the back burner (or in the back of a dark cupboard ).. might see some action soon! Cheers, Adam On Tue, May 23, 2023, 12:34 Ben Ritter wrote: > I recently came across Tippecanoe, which is a tool that outputs "Mapbox > Vector Tile Specification" tiles from other formats, with a focus on large > datasets and sensible level-of-detail handling. I haven't used it myself, > but it looks like it might be useful here. Maybe converting your data to > .mbtiles, then generating a "TMS folder" from that (which I imagine is > possible). > > https://github.com/felt/tippecanoe > https://github.com/mapbox/awesome-vector-tiles > > I hope those leads help you out. I'd be interested to hear what solution > you settle on! > > Cheers, > Ben > > On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 06:55, Adam Steer wrote: > >> Hiya >> >> I have about a gigabyte (maybe 2) of vector data for high resolution >> terrain classifications and features (snow safety related) that I want to >> publish in a way that leaflet/openlayers/cesium based apps can ingest it. >> >> I also want it to be static - bare http access without a server in the >> way. >> >> ...and I don't want to restrict access with a paywall, I want people to >> play with it and figure out if it is useful (donations are always welcome!) >> >> Currently it's all in .gpkg >> >> What's the current state of the art in static, over-http vector delivery >> for web apps (or to qgis) that isn't over-fluffy ? (Geojson for example >> blows the size out by a lot). Links to how-to's welcome... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> -- >> Dr Adam Steer >> https://iamadamsteer.com >> >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Publishing data as vector tiles/something else
I recently came across Tippecanoe, which is a tool that outputs "Mapbox Vector Tile Specification" tiles from other formats, with a focus on large datasets and sensible level-of-detail handling. I haven't used it myself, but it looks like it might be useful here. Maybe converting your data to .mbtiles, then generating a "TMS folder" from that (which I imagine is possible). https://github.com/felt/tippecanoe https://github.com/mapbox/awesome-vector-tiles I hope those leads help you out. I'd be interested to hear what solution you settle on! Cheers, Ben On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 06:55, Adam Steer wrote: > Hiya > > I have about a gigabyte (maybe 2) of vector data for high resolution > terrain classifications and features (snow safety related) that I want to > publish in a way that leaflet/openlayers/cesium based apps can ingest it. > > I also want it to be static - bare http access without a server in the way. > > ...and I don't want to restrict access with a paywall, I want people to > play with it and figure out if it is useful (donations are always welcome!) > > Currently it's all in .gpkg > > What's the current state of the art in static, over-http vector delivery > for web apps (or to qgis) that isn't over-fluffy ? (Geojson for example > blows the size out by a lot). Links to how-to's welcome... > > Thanks, > > Adam > > -- > Dr Adam Steer > https://iamadamsteer.com > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?
Have spotted a bit of a similar issue here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6168517#map=13/-28.0105/153.4332, which has a natural river & a few "streams" running through lots of dredged out canals e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/593943553#map=13/-28.0018/153.3810. Does this really need the relation included? Thanks Graeme On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 07:59, Little Maps wrote: > Thanks Warin and Cleary, I’ll remove the lake from the relation and cut > the relation back to the river banks. I agree, there’s no need to add name > or other tags to the riverbank (natural=water) tags as these details are > already on the waterway and the waterway relation. Warin, I’ve never seen a > lake that has a river name on its boundaries like this, the river details > are usually on a central waterway, if one has been mapped. Thanks again, Ian > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?
Thanks Warin and Cleary, I’ll remove the lake from the relation and cut the relation back to the river banks. I agree, there’s no need to add name or other tags to the riverbank (natural=water) tags as these details are already on the waterway and the waterway relation. Warin, I’ve never seen a lake that has a river name on its boundaries like this, the river details are usually on a central waterway, if one has been mapped. Thanks again, Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?
I agree with your proposed action to separate the lake from the remainder of the river. Related to this is the question of whether riverbanks should be named. I would name a waterway and its relation but not a riverbank multipolygon. I would have thought that a search for "Murray River" would not be assisted by lots of water area multipolygons all named Murray River. I'm not sure what is best practice. On Mon, 22 May 2023, at 4:09 PM, Little Maps wrote: > Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here... > > There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of Lake > Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a natural=water > 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280 > > There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' > that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river > upstream, and looks fine. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417 > > Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River > relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river upstream > of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake Hume > relation? > > The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the Murray, > so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. Again, this > relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central waterway. > > Anything I'm missing here? Thanks again, Ian > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?
On 22/5/23 16:09, Little Maps wrote: Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here... There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of Lake Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a natural=water 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280 There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river upstream, and looks fine. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417 Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river upstream of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake Hume relation? The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the Murray, so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. Again, this relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central waterway. That sound good to me. I have posed a simpler question on the wiki .. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:water%3Driver#Conflicts_between_river_bank_mapping_and_a_lake%2Freservoir See what the 'experts' come up with. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Murray River relation deletion?
Hi folks, just checking to make sure I'm not missing something here... There's a large relation called 'Murray River' which covers all of Lake Hume, plus an upstream section of the Murray. This is a natural=water 'riverbank' relation, not a waterway relation. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8327459#map=11/-36.1129/147.3280 There's also another, nearly identical, relation called 'Lake Hume' that covers Lake Hume only. This only covers the lake, not the river upstream, and looks fine. https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1531635#map=11/-36.0960/147.2417 Are there any objections if I severely truncate the Murray River relation so it excludes Lake Hume, and includes only the river upstream of Lake Hume, where it will join the eastern edge of the Lake Hume relation? The southern arm of Lake Hume is fed by the Mitta Mitta not the Murray, so calling the entire lake the Murray River is problematic. Again, this relation covers the boundary of the lake, not the central waterway. Anything I'm missing here? Thanks again, Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
