Arghhh....
I started mkgmap from the wrong workspace. I should have been more alarmed that I got exactly the same number of problems!

Ok, I will try again and hopefully the number of problems will be reduced *very* much.

Sorry!!
WanMil

Hi WanMil,

with your patch I see more messages for my Niedersachsen data,
but not a single one starts with "Late invalid".

Maybe you are looking at an old result file?

Gerd

 > Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:21:31 +0100
 > From: [email protected]
 > To: [email protected]
 > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Problem with turn restriction
 >
 > Hi Gerd,
 >
 > your fixes for 3) were already sorted out by my checks. So relations
 > without via coord in the bbox were not counted.
 >
 > I wonder why your fixes for 1) do not help. I have expected that it
 > removes some of the 851 problems...
 >
 > By the way:
 > 2) mmh, I don't mind adding that but I think it can be addressed with
 > very low priority. If there is a street where u-turns are not allowed
 > the street should be mapped with separate ways for each direction
 > (that's my opinion - don't know if that matches with the official
 > mapping guidelines).
 >
 > 4) Ok, they can be ignored. Would be great if we can detect them to
 > output different log messages for them.
 >
 > WanMil
 >
 > > Hi WanMil,
 > >
 > > that's strange. With r3000 I saw many problems for Niedersachen, with
 > > r3002 only 4, and those were the two examples.
 > >
 > > I am downloading latest Germany now.
 > >
 > > Gerd
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > WanMil wrote
 > >> Hi Gerd,
 > >>
 > >> I think your changes are good.
 > >> Anyhow for my special purpose I don't see any difference after
your fixes.
 > >> So I will explain what and how I am checking the restrictions (see
 > >> attached patch with the check code).
 > >>
 > >> All restrictions that are valid after loading but which cannot be
 > >> written to the map because there is a problem when the
 > >> RestrictionRelation.addRestriction(..) is called are logged with the
 > >> (not very useful...) text "Late invalid: "+URL of restriction.
 > >>
 > >> See relation_problems.txt with the results. There are 851 problems in
 > >> Germany using the tiles created with attached areas.list.
 > >>
 > >> I am not sure if really all logged restrictions are completely
valid but
 > >> all I checked should make its way into the mkgmap compiled map.
 > >>
 > >> I hope this helps you to find some other problematic places!
 > >>
 > >> WanMil
 > >>
 > >>> Hi WanMil,
 > >>>
 > >>> up to now I found these reasons for problems:
 > >>> 1) one error in the branch: via coords were replaced without updating
 > >>> the corrresponding restrictions and the hash map
 > >>> 2) "no_u_turn" restrictions were not added
 > >>> if from-way and to-way are equal. They are evaluated to be valid, but
 > >>> I don't know if they really make sense?
 > >>> 3) restrictions are added to the restrictions hash map even if
the via
 > >>> coord is
 > >>> not contained in the bounding box.
 > >>>
 > >>> 4) restrictions that have a from-way or to-way which
 > >>> is not added with a routable type or not at all,
 > >>> e.g. way http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225540783
 > >>> has no tags but is part of three restriction relations.
 > >>> Another example:
 > >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2880411
 > >>> refers to ways that are tagged lane=tertiary
 > >>> and the default style ignores them.
 > >>>
 > >>> In high-prec-coords branch r3003 I've fixed 1) to 3), please
 > >>> check again.
 > >>>
 > >>> Gerd
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>> > Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:01:40 -0800
 > >>> > From:
 > >
 > >> gpetermann_muenchen@
 > >
 > >>> > To:
 > >
 > >> [email protected]
 > >
 > >>> > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Problem with turn restriction
 > >>> >
 > >>> > WanMil wrote
 > >>> > >> I want to make a small statistic why restriction relations
become
 > >>> > >> invalid. Maybe the problem is so seldom that it's not worthy...
 > >>> > >
 > >>> > > I have made a short stat with the high-prec branch:
 > >>> > > There are around 850 relations that are valid
 > >>> > > (RestrictionRelation.isValid() == true) after loading but
that are
 > >>> not
 > >>> > > valid when the StyledConverter calls
 > >>> > > RestrictionRelations.convertRelation(MapCollector ...).
 > >>> > > So it seems to me as if the problem is greater than expected.
 > >>> >
 > >>> > Yes, sounds too much. The only good case that I can think of
 > >>> > is that the relation is saved by splitter because one of the
 > >>> > related ways has at least one point within the boundary, but
 > >>> > another part of the relation is outside of the boundary.
 > >>> > If the via node is within the tile boundary we should be able
 > >>> > to create the restriction.
 > >>> >
 > >>> > Gerd
 > >>> >
 > >>> >
 > >>> >
 > >>> > --
 > >>> > View this message in context:
 > >>>
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Problem-with-turn-restriction-tp5795049p5795167.html
 > >>> > Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
 > >>> > _______________________________________________
 > >>> > mkgmap-dev mailing list
 > >>> >
 > >
 > >> [email protected]
 > >
 > >>> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >>> _______________________________________________
 > >>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
 > >>>
 > >
 > >> [email protected]
 > >
 > >>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
 > >>>
 > >>
 > >>
 > >> _______________________________________________
 > >> mkgmap-dev mailing list
 > >
 > >> [email protected]
 > >
 > >> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
 > >>
 > >> relation_check.patch (1K)
 > >>
<http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5795291/0/relation_check.patch>
 > >> areas.list (14K)
 > >> <http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5795291/1/areas.list>
 > >> relation_problems.txt (71K)
 > >>
<http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5795291/2/relation_problems.txt>
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > --
 > > View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Problem-with-turn-restriction-tp5795049p5795294.html
 > > Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > mkgmap-dev mailing list
 > > [email protected]
 > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
 > >
 >
 > _______________________________________________
 > mkgmap-dev mailing list
 > [email protected]
 > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev


_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

Reply via email to