Talk:FlightGear World Scenery 2.0

Pros and cons of mixing forum and wiki discussions

I just moved the link to the forum topic FG Worldwide scenery 2.0 - Return of experience dedicated to discussing issues with the new scenery and this page to the top.

I have split feelings about doing that, as it can be hard to follow the whats and whys of this page in the future (even more so if something happened the the forum contents), as well as it can be hard to follow the discussion on the forum if something happened to the wiki or to this page.

This wiki is rather new and small, but on the larger wikis there can sometimes be a lot of discussion about the contents of pages. Those discussions will both be archived and have an edit history that reveals who said what in case of conflicts, or mere curiosity of why things turned out the way they did. That way a wiki can be a very transparent and open.

For the time being though I moved that link to the top to make things a bit easier for the ones looking at this page that might not be registered to the wiki, as well as to highlight that the wiki page and that topic are interconnected.

Thanks by the way, F-ojac for linking to the wiki page on the first post in the topic, so that the connection is shown there as well.

—Johan G (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Issue discussions

Issue 15

I investigated the osm data for the rivers in Germany, and could not find any utilizing the width column. I can only see two solutions to the problem, and both involve editing the source data locally, not an improvement in the toolchain itself:

1. Add width tags to the line segments in the offending OSM data, and utilize the width column in ogr-decode when decoding the line data
2. Provide a new shapefile for the watercourse landclass in the offending area.

Psadro gm (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)