Sign in or 
Share this
Showing 2 posts
washcycle |
Trails and Maps
Jul 11 2008, 11:03 AM EDT
Mooniker, I've been adding trails to the various trail maps and everything else to the DC map. I noticed on the Arlington one that you added the trails into that. Do you think the Major trails - Rock Creek, Mt Vernon and CCT for DC - should be added onto the DC map individually?
Do you find this valuable?
|
mooniker |
1. RE: Trails and Maps
Jul 11 2008, 6:02 PM EDT
Short answer is no, not necessary, I think.I ran into that data limit a lot with Arlington, so Arlington's route data (not including F.C., Alex., or info placemarks) is divided into four (My) Maps. One for trails, two for official on-street routes, and one for suggestions. I'm actually surprised our D.C. map hasn't hit the limit yet, and my theory is that so many of D.C.'s streets (especially bike lanes) are straight, so there are less data. (Only two coordinate pairs for a straight line versus a long list of coordinate pairs for a winding road.) So, I'm assuming that if we draw in trails (which meander -- many coordinate pairs) on the same map, we will hit that limit fast. So I'd say keep putting trails (even minor, unnamed) in the various/cardinal trail maps for now (but keep the small ones skinny to 2 pixels or so). Ive just adjusted the D.C. mapplet to overlay the DC mashup map (mostly on-street routes) with the various trail maps we have (NW, NE, So, We). It looks quite usable! But it may take some time (hours? days?) for Google server and browser caches to cycle in that update. (I set up a mapplet developer manual refresh option.) We may want to reorganize the cardinal/trail maps in the future, but definitely don't bother redrawing trails we already have. For example, if we want to make a trails map for just D.C., I think it would be easier to compile the KMLs from the cardinal maps and then go down the list and remove non-D.C. trails. Do you find this valuable? |
