Hi Ticker, I also don't know what 0x28 is, but you are probably right that the code is wrong. A change from LinkedHashMap to TreeMap for field index in MDR9 should fix this, right?
Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-boun...@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Steve Ratcliffe <st...@parabola.me.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2019 23:12 An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] MDR 9 & 10 groups Hi Ticker > So, the first question is, does anyone know why 0x28 was given it's own > group. I've no idea why, but that is the way it is as far as I could determine. > The second problem is that the code that builds up the group start > indexes into Mdr10 for Mdr9 assumes that the type ranges of the POI > allocated for a group are in the same order as the groups, so, if you > actually have a POI of type 0x28 then, because it has a lower type but > a higher group than the 0x2a..30 range/groups, mdr9 is wrong. I don't see where that happens but that would be wrong and mdr9 should be ordered by group. Cheers Steve _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
