I believe there is actually a small issue with the definition here, as there are two conflicting DIP definitions in use (one pixel on mobile devices ~160 DPI vs one pixel for CSS 96 DPI), we need to state what we are using.
Simon Am 19.02.2020 um 17:22 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 19 feb 2020, alle ore 16:37, Michal Migurski <m...@teczno.com> ha >> scritto: >> >> For our purposes, this is a better definition because it’s defined in terms >> of what a viewer can see rather than its implementation in hardware. > > contrary to what I had written above I agree that the requirement/definition > should be based on css-pixels because actual pixels are hard to know/control > (if you design a website you cannot control/forsee the devices that people > use to look at it, you base your layout on these theoretical css-pixels). > But I stick to the comment that 500px are far too many (=1000 actual retina > pixels or 1500 px on a retina@3). 200px seems perfectly ok for rendering a > readable attribution string and still having some space left. There is no > technical problem with lack of space for 200px wide maps. > > Cheers Martin > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
