<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>In the former trial, while the text in my “sent mail” looks just fine, in the dev archive and in the distributed mail is just a mess of badly formatted strings. I apologise for this incompatibility. At the same time the coastline is an everlasting issue. Simply, it is a kind of frame where other objects are located. It is complex and complicated for processing, it requires some of the fundamental processes in the vector based GIS and map-making processes like the vector tiling, data generalisation and scale levels’ generation. Confronting different approaches is a fundamental power of the development. Having that on mind I have tried to present another view of the mentioned processes and demonstrate the results using the coastline source data. </p><p class=MsoNormal>If you already work with the mentioned processes then you may find your approaches and results as good as I am presenting, or even better. In that case you should be satisfied and I have to do more deeper and extensive research/development work. But in the opposite case you might be motivated to read the algorithms related hints and the experimental/test results. The first link is pointing to the short summery version as it looks in my mail to dev. <span lang=NO-BOK><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=NO-BOK><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJbK_FaLMq32nd88GVFu17nsW4WNseR4/view?usp=sharing">https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tJbK_FaLMq32nd88GVFu17nsW4WNseR4/view?usp=sharing</a> .<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>But, if you want to see why the vector pre-tiling technology is old fashion today compared to the multi-tiling based on-the-fly vector data service, then you can directly jump to the slightly longer and more detailed text here <span lang=NO-BOK><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=NO-BOK><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q6MSuWPcAtggn6Hx5paBa62IlsLOPadc/view?usp=sharing"><span lang=EN-GB>https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q6MSuWPcAtggn6Hx5paBa62IlsLOPadc/view?usp=sharing</span></a> .<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>Of course, you will be probably still missing many fine details. After all the subject is for a while book (or more). For instance, how a polygon clipping algorithm may be so fast that the parent 1km tiling process of the coastline land polygons takes just several seconds on a laptop. Only this question may trigger many issues like – may this clipping be exclusively based on comparations? In my case, I don’t need to hide anything.</p><p class=MsoNormal>Regards, Sandor. </p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=NO-BOK><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Sent from <a href="https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986">Mail</a> for Windows 10</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>