Mailing-List: contact general-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: unknown (nike.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
 pjaol@pjaol.com)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f18c9dde0912280922r5d7bfc24ra0fa4637da10780b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B860EB0F-04CC-4B6C-953B-DFFCA4331B47@apache.org>
	 <f18c9dde0912280922r5d7bfc24ra0fa4637da10780b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:51:11 -0800
Message-ID: <1e33aedb0912281251r62dcda60p342a95865152838f@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [spatial] Cartesian "Tiers" nomenclature
From: "patrick o'leary" <pjaol@pjaol.com>
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c9351dbcca6c047bd010fd

--001636c9351dbcca6c047bd010fd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

So Grant here's the deal behind the name.
Cartesian because it's a simple x.y coordinate system
Tier because there are multiple tiers, levels of resolution.

If you look at it closer:
- To programmers there's a quadtree implementation
- To web users who use maps these are grids / tiles.
- To GIS experts this is a form of multi-resolution raster-ing.
- To astrophysicists these are tiers.
- To the MS folks I've talked to they have quad something or other.
- To math folks Cartesian levels makes sense.

Can't make all the people happy all the time,

Some folks view tiers/tiles as the mind killer, ahh I could quote Dune all
day, but anyway's I digress.
"r-trees" are the way forward, nope Hilbert curves are the way, then someday
I expect someone
to come along with the biometric butt print of sputnik as the ultimate way
to map something.
None of which, including CartesianTiers are a full solution, but all
represent a solution to something that's GIS in nature.

Web-ers think in the concept of google maps/zoom levels, chuck a mercator
projector in there and you have google maps.
I have a TMS, Google, and MS projector all which can fit into this stuff,
but I also have more that aren't web map service projectors.

I won't give you a vote as obviously I'm bias.
semantic naming for standardization is something I do agree with, but I
don't feel there is a good standard out there yet.
If we pick something that's OGC in nature and makes sense then you have my
support
But if it's just a google / MS bunch of blogs then I don't think it's worth
while.


On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Simon Willnauer <
simon.willnauer@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I would extremely prefer a common well know name instead of Cartensian
> tiers. While the API is still in flux changing the name is not that
> much of a deal either. Either grid or tiles is fine for me though
> while I would prefer the most common of the two - grid seems to be the
> better choice though. Yet, should we stick to Cartesian?!
>
> simon
>
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > As some of you may know, I've been working pretty heavily on spatial
> stuff lately.  One of the things that has bothered me for a while is the use
> of the terminology: cartesian tiers.  The thing is, I can't find any
> reference to such a thing in any place other than Local Lucene and Patrick's
> white paper on it.  Most GIS systems seem to either talk about grids or
> tiles when describing this capability.
> >
> > Do you think it is worth a name change?  This is about to get baked into
> Solr and I would really prefer we choose names that the rest of the world
> seems to understand.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Grant
>

--001636c9351dbcca6c047bd010fd--