[OSM-talk] OSM maps on Garmin GPS
steve at asklater.com
Tue Nov 21 16:31:03 GMT 2006
* @ 21/11/06 04:31:25 PM sxpert at sxpert.org wrote:
> SteveC wrote:
> >* @ 21/11/06 04:18:30 PM sxpert at sxpert.org wrote:
> >>well, lets put it this way, necessity is the mother of invention.
> >>if people came up with this, there must be a good reason, such as
> >>"yikes, it's faster".
> >>what would have been the reason if it didn't give any advantage over the
> >>regular thing ?
> >So you're asserting it's better because it must me?
> >Like, everyone uses Windows so it must be better?
> I never asserted this.
> I said that there must be a reason that they came up with that, what
> would be the point of researching this otherwise.
Because the SQL looks prettier?
> now, if you can prove that using 2 columns and 2 normal btree indexes is
> faster than using an r-tree index on the set of 2 (or more) columns, I'm
> listening :D
Like I said, I thought Nick Hill did. But you are the spatial bandwagon
people so really it's up to you to prove it.
Please, not another 'we should use WFS-T' debate.
SteveC steve at asklater.com http://www.asklater.com/steve/
More information about the talk