Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

tile-join metadata generator_options increasing mbtiles size #823

Open
jgololicic opened this issue Jan 5, 2020 · 4 comments
Open

tile-join metadata generator_options increasing mbtiles size #823

jgololicic opened this issue Jan 5, 2020 · 4 comments

Comments

@jgololicic
Copy link

What I do

I have an application where users can add new routes to map. Application calculates each time popularity of routes using complex post filters and regenerates mbtiles. I generate temp mbtiles only for the area of newly added route (bbox). In next step I remove routes within this bbox area from live mbtiles with tile-join -j '{some-long-filer-string}'. After that I merge live mbtiles with temp mbtiles, so I get updated live mbtiles. Visualization works just great! (The idea was taken from this answer: #694 (comment))

The problem:

Each time I run these steps, with the same GeoJSON data, I get increase in mbtiles file size due to appending command line to mbtiles meta generator_options field.

The solution?

To have an option to remove that meta property (since it is not needed according to Mapbox). I have checked the Docs and went briefly through tile-join implementation, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is not possible at the moment?

Test tileJSON file attached
v3.json.txt

@e-n-f
Copy link
Contributor

e-n-f commented Jan 7, 2020

Thanks for the report. I should probably limit the maximum size of the generator_options field, since it seems to do more harm than good to retain this much information about how the tileset was generated.

@jgololicic
Copy link
Author

Limiting it would be fine. Also, maybe just populating it with the last command line instead of appending each command line would be fine.
Thank you for your reply!

@e-n-f
Copy link
Contributor

e-n-f commented Jan 8, 2020

This should be fixed by #826

@jgololicic
Copy link
Author

Great, thank you. Looking forward to see it in action.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants