nicola.mfb at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 12:24:49 CET 2009
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Christophe M <meumeu1402 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Personnaly I don't find it redundant.
> - If you use a 2D map, it's easier to draw a bitmap rather than a vector. It
> consume less cpu so less battery. Due to my experience, I find navit really
> slower than tangogps
> - There is more maps in bitmaps than in vector format, I think about
> google's ones, I'm using thats maps but I would appreciate routing, with a
> combination of bitmap and vector you can see the map in png and get routing
> informations from vector one, less cpu, advantage of both vector and
> bitmaps. You can even show the calculated itinary on top of the bitmap ...
There is another big advantage using the vector format, you may decide
what and when rendering of the available data, may change colors,
rendering styles, etc. all in real time.
With the tile approach you'll have get a fixed set of features with a
fixed style that may not match your needs.
With vectorial data you may merge several layers togheter in a easy
way, (no multiple file for a tile, no alpha blending etc.)
Finally, a full featured osm navigation system may use osm api to
update easily data for a region with a minimal use of bandwidth.
As suggested the right way may be to cache autorendered tiles to a
smart cache, the renderer engine may precompute near tiles while
moving in a separate thread and the traditional tile way may be used
for terrain, sat, or if really necessary to show other map tiled map
More information about the community