I've tried this with the UK, the file size for all that geodata was 25MB+, mainly because of Scotland's complex coastline and the fact that some counties had incredibly complex <MultiGeometry> to take account of hundred and hundreds of offshore islands.
The performance on Fusion Tables was OK if I included just the name and geometry for each polygon. Adding any other data (ie. useful for turning the map into a chloropleth) slowed down the map's reaction times. Based on my experience I disagree that Fusion Tables is a solution for you at present. I assume there's a way to simplify polygons while ensuring the boundaries are still coterminous (ie. using some kind of GiS to crunch the numbers). Presumably then simpler polygons would equal better Fusion Tables performance. If anyone can enlightenment me on whether I'm right in my assumption, do tell... Good luck Silverio, Nick On Feb 20, 3:54 am, "Silverio Lora" <silv...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello friends, > > I'm using the Google Maps API for showing information about the 32 states > and 2,456 municipalities of my country. > > Each polygon has between 500 and 2,000 nodes and I have serious performance > problems. > > I tried simplifying some polygons removing nodes without a real improvement. > > I tried creating GroundOverlay for the 32 states but I'll expend a lot of > time for 2,456 images. > > Some suggestion?? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps JavaScript API v3" group. To post to this group, send email to google-maps-js-api-v3@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-js-api-v3+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en.
