I like "tile" best -- this has a direct mapping to common map caching
systems (google/bing/tms/WorldWind)
'Grid' is also good. In OpenLayers, 'grid' is the parent, and tile
based variations extend 'grid'.
"Tier" is interesting since it implies various levels, but i think
using a more common term is better for a wider audience.
"Cartesian"? The common tiling schemes are all cartesian (planar),
however i think much of the same mechanics can be used to to tile
spherical space. Consider something like: HEALPix http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/
Uwe mentioned "Quad Tree or Trie" -- the big difference I see is that
tiles or grids have sizes that are defined independent of the data.
Quadtree, RTree, etc typically resize themselves as data is added.
I like "Tile", "TilePlotter", "FindBestTile", etc best. Grid also
works, but seems to refer to the whole system rather then the cell.
ryan
On Dec 28, 2009, at 12:22 PM, Simon Willnauer 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
|