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

Switch back to minimal footprints #92

Open
mojodna opened this issue Dec 15, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

Switch back to minimal footprints #92

mojodna opened this issue Dec 15, 2017 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@mojodna
Copy link
Owner

mojodna commented Dec 15, 2017

We switched to maximal footprints in order to pick up places like the southwest corner near Santa Cruz. With the switch to bounding box filling, covering empty pixels now produces transparencies in the resulting output. Switching back to minimal footprints (and buffering the bounding box) should eliminate the voids and pick up places that would have been missed previously.

@mojodna mojodna added this to the Mapzen aerial composite milestone Dec 15, 2017
@mojodna mojodna self-assigned this Dec 15, 2017
@nvkelso nvkelso added the p3 label Dec 15, 2017
@nvkelso
Copy link
Collaborator

nvkelso commented Dec 15, 2017

Noting here this mostly affects terrain data, not aerial imagery data.

@mojodna
Copy link
Owner Author

mojodna commented Dec 15, 2017

There are 3 steps to this:

  • switch back from using gdalwarp to rio shapes in marblecutter-tools
  • re-generate footprints for terrain data
  • add buffering to the bounding box query (probably in pixels). Cf. how mapnik handles buffer sizes.

@mojodna mojodna removed this from the Mapzen aerial composite milestone Dec 15, 2017
@mojodna
Copy link
Owner Author

mojodna commented Dec 15, 2017

Also look into rio's --with-nodata option (in addition to / conditionally instead of --mask); with bbox filling, unmasked water areas need to be seen as uncovered to pick resolution to use behind them.

mojodna added a commit to mojodna/marblecutter-tilezen that referenced this issue Dec 19, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants