<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div class="h5">
<br>
</div></div>If you already have the vector data you doesn't need the bitmap data<br>
anymore because you can render the displayed map directly from these<br>
data. That is what navit already does and therefor a combination of<br>
vector and bitmap data makes no sense. It would make the data redundant<br>
and more complicated.<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Personnaly I don't find it redundant.<br>- 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<br>
- 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 ...<br>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>------------------------------<br><br>Openmoko phone gui :<br><br><a href="http://www.qalee.org">http://www.qalee.org</a><br><br>