[OSM-dev] Compression types in PBF Format
scrosby at cs.rice.edu
Tue Nov 30 23:41:10 GMT 2010
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Stefan de Konink <stefan at konink.de> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> ...so all code of Jochen should be used now? Get real. So exactly what
> Scott suggest: why does nobody step in then, write code that nobody uses
> afterwards and present a proper benchmark to show that bzip/gzip/lzma is
The real question is does supporting bzip2/lzma offer advantages that
are commensurate with the added implementation complexity, not just in
pbf2osm but in every other reader too.
Would you be willing to run an experiment with LZMA? If it shaves a
gigabyte off of the planet, then I'd say its worth further
consideration; if it shaves 100MB, then its not. Make a case for why
it should be included.
>> Excuse me, but discussing potential problems of a design is not a show
>> of lack of respect - unless presented in a form like the aforementioned
>> "osmosis devs failed to read the specs".
> Oh dear, so because I actually feedbacked on Scott and asked questions,
> and verified my code and implemented the specs I cannot complain osmosis
You do realize that *I* designed the format AND wrote the spec AND
wrote the osmosis reference implementation?
That means that if there are any errors or omissions in that
implementation or spec, they are my mistakes. If there is an
ambiguity, then I have made the call as to what is right. If there are
any differences between the spec, reference implementation, and the
conceptual design, I'm the one resolving the conflict and determining
the best way to fix the issue.
I do appreciate you finding the bugs and ambiguities in the spec by
being the first independent implementation, and I hope you will
consider running the LZMA experiment, but you have been rude and
More information about the dev