[OAM-talk] a dramatically simplified technical proposal

[Maurizio]

> I understand the desire for transparency, but I'm not entirely sure
> how we see it being used.

I am very much a believer that when something is really required ... ways 
will be found.
For example: why exclud a mixed format approach jpg / png (for no-data 
areas) for those who really require transparency?

http://tileservice.net/dstile2-ol/spherical-mercator.html?zoom=12&lat=42.82814&lon=-78.46676&layers=B000FT

For some transparency might be a necessity and it is precisely for this 
reason that I would suggest as a general guideline
"if it can be viewed with OpenLayers then it's ok".

ciao

Maurizio

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Schmidt" <crschmidt at metacarta.com>
To: "Maurizio" <maurizio at madmappers.com>
Cc: "Schuyler Erle" <schuyler at nocat.net>; "talk" <talk at openaerialmap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OAM-talk] a dramatically simplified technical proposal


> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:28:55AM +0200, Maurizio wrote:
>> Thanks for the outline.
>>
>>> Image tiles should be 256x256 pixels in 8- or 24-bit compressed PNG 
>>> format
>>
>> Being a tile person my main concern is that tile format is being too
>> tightly restricted leaving out the vast majority of image tile formats
>> currently in use:
>
> I agree with this, for two reasons:
>
> 1. It doesn't match anything else.
> 2. It's a very poor match for photographic imagery.
>
> I understand the desire for transparency, but I'm not entirely sure
> how we see it being used. Other than that use case, JPG is a far better
> format for delivery of data; it will be a huge cost savings in bandwidth
> alone, and is the 'standard' for delivery of photographic data, so doing
> anything else feels wrong.
>
> Regards,
> -- 
> Christopher Schmidt
> MetaCarta