diff --git a/IV/Makefile b/IV/Makefile index 0d8bbe4..434a7db 100644 --- a/IV/Makefile +++ b/IV/Makefile @@ -182,7 +182,6 @@ $(eval $(call wm_vwdp50kblack,wm75,,grpk10,1)) $(eval $(call wm_vwdp50kblack,wm75,,grpk10,1,tr)) $(eval $(call wm_vwdp50kblack,wm75,,grpk10,1,tl)) - salvis-25k_1SELECT = wm_visuals where name='salvis-grpk10' salvis-25k_WIDTHDIV = 1 diff --git a/IV/mj-msc.tex b/IV/mj-msc.tex index 14ab070..b6408b8 100644 --- a/IV/mj-msc.tex +++ b/IV/mj-msc.tex @@ -1392,21 +1392,21 @@ Our generalized results are viewed from the following angles: \subsubsection{Medium-scale (1:\numprint{50000})} \label{sec:analyzed-medium-scale} -\begin{figure}[h!] +\begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{salvis-wm75--grpk10-1x50k} \caption{2x zoomed-in {\WM} for 1:\numprint{50000}.} \label{fig:salvis-wm75--grpk10-1x50k} \end{figure} -\begin{figure}[h!] +\begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{salvis-wm75--grpk10-1x50ktl} \caption{Left part of Figure~\ref{fig:salvis-wm75--grpk10-1x50k}.} \label{fig:salvis-wm75--grpk10-1x50ktl} \end{figure} -\begin{figure}[h!] +\begin{figure}[h] \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{salvis-wm75--grpk10-1x50ktr} \caption{Top--right part of Figure~\ref{fig:salvis-wm75--grpk10-1x50k}.} @@ -1429,6 +1429,8 @@ simplification in the next section. To sum up, mid-scale simplification works well for some geometries, but creates sharp edges for others. +\clearpage + \subsubsection{Large-scale (1:\numprint{250000})} \label{sec:analyzed-large-scale} @@ -1450,7 +1452,7 @@ simplification and overlays the original. \includegraphics[width=.2\textwidth]{salvis-wm220-10x} \caption{Simplified.} \end{subfigure} - \caption{GDB10LT simplified with {\WM} for 1:\numprint{250000}.} + \caption{GRPK10 simplified with {\WM} for 1:\numprint{250000}.} \label{fig:salvis-wm220-10x} \end{figure} @@ -1465,6 +1467,8 @@ A conglomeration of bends is visible, especially in top--right side of the illustration. We assume this was caused by two bends significantly exaggerated, leaving no space to exaggerate for those between the two. +\clearpage + \subsubsection{Discussion} For mid-size scales of 1:\numprint{50000}, the implemented algorithm works well @@ -1487,13 +1491,13 @@ future research and improvement: \subsubsection{Background} -There are a few datasets used in this comparison: GDB10LT, GRPK50 and +There are a few datasets used in this comparison: GRPK10, GRPK50 and GRPK250. They are vector datasets, which include rivers. They can be downloaded for free from \cite{nzt}. Here are the meanings of the codenames: \begin{description} - \item[GDB10LT] is dataset of highest detail. Suited for maps of scale + \item[GRPK10] is dataset of highest detail. Suited for maps of scale 1:\numprint{10000}. \item[GRPK50] is suited for maps of scale 1:\numprint{50000}. @@ -1503,17 +1507,19 @@ downloaded for free from \cite{nzt}. Here are the meanings of the codenames: \end{description} -During the analysis, we ran {\WM} on GDB10LT for 2 destination scales: -1:\numprint{50000} and 1:\numprint{250000}.\footnote{parameter calculation is -detailed in section~\ref{sec:bend-scaling-and-dimensions}.} This section -compares the resulting {\WM}--generalized rivers to GRPK50 and GRPK250. +During the analysis, we ran {\WM} on GRPK10 for 2 destination scales: +1:\numprint{50000} and 1:\numprint{250000}.\footnote{How parameters are +calculated is detailed in section~\ref{sec:bend-scaling-and-dimensions}.} This +section compares the resulting {\WM}--generalized rivers to GRPK50 and GRPK250. + +\clearpage \subsubsection{Medium-scale (1:\numprint{50000})} -For our research location, the national dataset GDB10LT is almost equivalent to +For our research location, the national dataset GRPK10 is almost equivalent to GRPK50, with a few nuances. Figure~\ref{fig:salvis-wm75-grpk50-grpk10-1x50k} -illustrates all three shapes: GRPK50, {\WM}--simplified GDB10LT, and the -original GDB10LT. +illustrates all three shapes: GRPK50, {\WM}--simplified GRPK10, and the +original GRPK10. \begin{figure}[h!] \centering @@ -1536,6 +1542,8 @@ Figure~\ref{fig:salvis-wm75-grpk50-grpk10-1x50ktr} illustrates two small bends that have been removed in GRPK50, but have been exaggerated by our implementation. +\clearpage + \subsubsection{Large-scale (1:\numprint{250000})} \label{sec:national-large-scale} @@ -1557,13 +1565,12 @@ desired in section~\ref{sec:future-suggestions}. \begin{subfigure}[b]{.49\textwidth} \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{salvis-wm220} - \caption{{\WM}-simplified GDB10LT.} + \caption{{\WM}-simplified GRPK10.} \end{subfigure} - \caption{GRPK250 and {\WM}--simplified GDB10LT.} + \caption{GRPK250 and {\WM}--simplified GRPK10.} \label{fig:salvis-wm220} \end{figure} - \subsection{Comparison with {\DP} and {\VW}} It is time to visually compare our implementation with the classical @@ -1573,30 +1580,31 @@ in this section to 1:\numprint{50000}. \begin{figure}[h!] \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{salvis-wm75-dp64-grpk10-1x50k} - - + \caption{} \label{fig:salvis-wm75-dp64-grpk10-1x50k} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[h!] \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{salvis-wm75-dpchaikin64-grpk10-1x50k} - + \caption{} \label{fig:salvis-wm75-dpchaikin64-grpk10-1x50k} \end{figure} +\clearpage \begin{figure}[h!] \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{salvis-wm75-vw64-grpk10-1x50k} - + \caption{} \label{fig:salvis-wm75-vw64-grpk10-1x50k} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[h!] \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{salvis-wm75-vwchaikin64-grpk10-1x50k} - + \caption{} \label{fig:salvis-wm75-vwchaikin64-grpk10-1x50k} \end{figure} +\clearpage \subsection{Testing Results Online} \label{sec:testing-results-online} @@ -1624,6 +1632,8 @@ produces poorly simplified results for some geometries. \label{fig:openmap-wm-bad} \end{figure} +\clearpage + \section{Conclusions} \label{sec:conclusions}