4 ms·

Really a pdf...government. A simple jpeg would of worked.

• wtallis 15y ago
  Not really. This file is 1.5MB, and a 150dpi low-quality JPEG export of that is 2.7MB and the street names are barely legible. For a map like this, consisting of mostly text and really simple vector data, with only a handful of colors, raster images are really inefficient.
  • cema 15y ago
    Would svg be better? I mean, lighter and legible.
    • wtallis 15y ago
      Not likely. A quick test of several compression formats shows that this file can only be shrunk by about 20KB, so it's already had most of the redundancy removed. Re-encoding the same information as SVG isn't going to make it more compact. What would make for a more compact download would be removing detail: the coastlines could be simplified, and perhaps not all the roads need to be shown. That would also speed up client-side rendering time, which is the biggest downside compared to raster images.