Clipping — where it appears
Named by 4 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A tile is drawn without its neighbours
Independence is what makes the scheme scale: one request touches one square of the world. It also means a feature crossing nine tiles is nine features, each labelled at its own centroid — up to 1,863 kilometres from the whole one — and the displacement is bounded by the size of the feature rather than the size of a tile, so it grows as the reader zooms out.
Cells that are rectangles in no coordinate
The previous rung measured what moving a field between two cell schemes costs, and did it between two schemes whose cells are longitude–latitude rectangles — which is what made every overlap a rectangle with a closed-form area. The schemes anybody actually argues about have cells that are rectangles in no coordinate, and their overlaps have to be clipped.
The same number of cells, in two shapes
Moving a field between two cell schemes loses 18 per cent of it per cell in one geometry and 39 in another, and the earlier measurement could not say whether that was the shape of the cells or the ratio of their sizes, because changing the schemes changed both. Holding the counts settles it: the count ratio decides most of the loss, and the shape is still worth a quarter of the field.
A label belongs to no tile
Nine rungs price the tile as a piece of geometry. A label is not geometry — it is a page object placed by collision against other page objects, and collision is a global relation while a tile is rendered alone. Cut a page into tiles and 10.3 per cent of the labels are placed differently; the buffer that closes the gap is half a tile at moderate density and a whole one when it is crowded.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
AggregationAreaCell systemConservationDiscrete global gridInterpolationLocalityRebinningResolutionSpherical polygonTile pyramidValidation