You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I can see past arguments about the width / colour of man_made=cutline, but can anybody explain the choice of a square line cap rather than the (default) butt? This leads to weird protrusions, which don't make sense cartographically:
The butt cap is not ideal when the cutline is not perpendicular to the forest edge, but the square just looks odd at any angle. Is this a hangover from when it was a pale colour / white and the "overrun" was less visible?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This dates back to the time when cutlines were rendered in plain land color (see #1767).
With us now rendering the landcover layer at the very beginning and the cutlines immediately afterwards we could probably use comp-op to make the cutlines only show up above a defined landcover and not over plain land color. I have not actually tried this though, just an idea.
But the whole concept of rendering cutlines in a way that implies a specific landcover is also questionable in principle.
I can see past arguments about the width / colour of
man_made=cutline
, but can anybody explain the choice of a square line cap rather than the (default) butt? This leads to weird protrusions, which don't make sense cartographically:Here:
The butt cap is not ideal when the cutline is not perpendicular to the forest edge, but the square just looks odd at any angle. Is this a hangover from when it was a pale colour / white and the "overrun" was less visible?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: