Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

There is also a OSciM TileStache Provider #1

Open
hjanetzek opened this issue Nov 24, 2012 · 3 comments
Open

There is also a OSciM TileStache Provider #1

hjanetzek opened this issue Nov 24, 2012 · 3 comments

Comments

@hjanetzek
Copy link

Just in case you didnt saw it already: https://github.com/jeffdameth/TileStache/blob/master/TileStache/OSciMap/TileData.proto contains the protocol definition.
From looking at the code I was wondering why you implemented the parser analog to oscim MapDatabase instead of using the pbf code generator. Needles to say that I'm thrilled that you write a implementation for mapnik which was also somewhere on my want-todo list :)

The 0.2 protocol is still inofficial (i.e. not enabled in the apk) if you have suggestions for improvement please let me know. One thing I would like to change is instead of having a fixed list of keys and common tags to transmit them with tile 0/0/0 for each map.

@hjanetzek
Copy link
Author

oh, there is also a start of documentation for the protocol, trying to imitate the tounge of a RFC..
http://city.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~jeff/oscim-draft.txt

@artemp
Copy link
Owner

artemp commented Nov 25, 2012

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! . I only saw
https://github.com/artemp/VectorTileMap/blob/pre-lib/VectorTileMap/TileData.proto which didn't match oscim or pbf MapDatabase.java. I guess I've learnt how protobuf works internally now :).

So https://github.com/jeffdameth/TileStache/blob/master/TileStache/OSciMap/TileData.proto is 0.2 protocol ? Or am I missing something.

Not having a fixed list of key=val would be great. Have you thought about transmitting styling information to the client rather then OSM tags ?

Also, what are your thoughts about using proto-buf based protocol for browser based rendering ?

Thanks for the great app!

@hjanetzek
Copy link
Author

On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Artem Pavlenko notifications@github.comwrote:

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! . I only saw

https://github.com/artemp/VectorTileMap/blob/pre-lib/VectorTileMap/TileData.protowhich didn't match oscim or pbf MapDatabase.java. I guess I've learnt how
protobuf works internally now :).

At least when using pbf with Android a custom parser is definitely of
advantage, having looked at the code that the generator spits out...

So
https://github.com/jeffdameth/TileStache/blob/master/TileStache/OSciMap/TileData.protois 0.2 protocol ? Or am I missing something.

yes, it's the current version read by oscim.MapDatabase and used when
choosing OpenScienceMap2 as Map mode.

Not having a fixed list of key=val would be great. Have you thought
about transmitting styling information to the client rather then OSM tags ?

you mean using generalized categories instead of osm tags? this is already
possible by changing the render-theme.

Also, what are your thoughts about using proto-buf based protocol for
browser based rendering ?

I don't see any problems with it. it would make sense to not create tiles
twice. Though for javascript I would probably use a pbf code-generator. As
we had tiles stored in PostGIS already and I'm not used to javascript it
was easier to write a TileStache json provider that can be used for
kothic-js http://city.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~jeff/kothic/debug/. If you
want to test oscim-pbf in a browser the implementation in kothic-js should
be straight forward. when adding webgl renderer and proper themeing it
might actually become quite nice :)

Thanks for the great app!

Thank you! code-wise it is still rough on many edges as I'm working on too
many things concurrently. don't hesitate to report issues when testing it
with your tile-server.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/1#issuecomment-10695008.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants