[mkgmap-dev] DEM display level.
Hi, I have a question about the behavior of mkgmap. If I build 2 different maps using the same exact settings I get 2 different outputs for DEM display. Let me try to explain. my settings for DEM : --overview-dem-dist=8 --dem-dists=9942 If I build a map, let's say Mongolia, I have DEM rendering from zoom level 3000km in basecamp... obviously not very useful but it is there. If I build another map, let's say of europe, the DEM rendering only occurs at zoomlevel 30km and below to 20m. Does anyone know why? Thank you Joao ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes
In my style I have the following:
(highway=motorway | highway=trunk | highway=primary | highway=secondary |
highway=tertiary | highway=motorway_link | highway=trunk_link |
highway=primary_link | highway=secondary_link | highway=tertiary_link |
highway=residential | highway=unclassified | highway=track | highway=bridleway
| highway=cycleway | highway=footway | highway=path) & area=yes {delete
highway} # delete unwanted areas
I leave highway=service and highway=pedestrian as these are valid but the
others are not.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: DD8KQ [mailto:dd...@gmx.de]
Sent: 13 September 2020 10:09
To: Development list for mkgmap ; Ticker Berkin
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes
Hi Ticker
just for me a hint, how can i ignore this in a style ?
Am 13.09.2020 um 09:59 schrieb Ticker Berkin:
> Hi all
>
> Checking the GBR, I detect 1865 of these highway areas. They are done
> in a consistent and systematic way by a number of mappers.
>
> I don't think it is a mapping error or an attempt to define the extent
> of a junction as per the proposed tagging highway=junction.
> Rather it is some option on the editing tool or some guidelines they
> are following that says to do this as a way of documenting the changes
> they have made within the junction area.
>
> I'll ask some of the mappers why they are doing it.
>
> These constructs can cause invalid routes to be calculated as well as
> confusing/irrelevant direction pop-ups and I now ignore them in my
> style.
>
> Ticker
>
>
> ___
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
--
#
Viele Grüße und 73 de Manfred Haiduk, DD8KQ
e-mail mhai...@t-online.de dd...@gmx.de
#
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes
Well, if these areas are legitimate OSM objects, that's one thing. But if they're some mapper's idea of a way to customize the map for his or her (or a company's) particular use then I think they should be removed. Especially if they're causing routing problems. What are they? What purpose do they serve? If those questions cannot be answered then I say delete them. Dave On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 6:21 PM Ticker Berkin wrote: > I've found quite a few proper roads mapped as closed ways with > [highway=unclassified, area=yes], but in the cases I've looked at so > far, there has also been a correct unclosed way to represent the road. > > I can't think of any method using style rules to detect the case when > there isn't this additional road, but my preference is to ignore these > areas and so avoid messing up junctions on major roads at the expense > of maybe not having a route over unclassified roads. > > Ticker > > > ___ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes
I've found quite a few proper roads mapped as closed ways with [highway=unclassified, area=yes], but in the cases I've looked at so far, there has also been a correct unclosed way to represent the road. I can't think of any method using style rules to detect the case when there isn't this additional road, but my preference is to ignore these areas and so avoid messing up junctions on major roads at the expense of maybe not having a route over unclassified roads. Ticker ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes
ThanksMit freundlichem Gruß Manfred Haiduk Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Ticker Berkin Datum: 13.09.2020 11:48 (GMT+01:00) An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes HiIn styles / default / lines, around line 181, the change would be:highway=unclassified [0x06 road_class=0 road_speed=3 resolution 21]to:highway=unclassified & area!=yes [0x06 road_class=0 road_speed=3resolution 21]If you style has a mop-up for unhandled highways, make sure that thisisn't triggeredTickerOn Sun, 2020-09-13 at 11:09 +0200, DD8KQ wrote:> Hi Ticker> > just for me a hint, how can i ignore this in a style ?> ___mkgmap-dev mailing listmkgmap-...@lists.mkgmap.org.ukhttp://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
Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes
Hi In styles / default / lines, around line 181, the change would be: highway=unclassified [0x06 road_class=0 road_speed=3 resolution 21] to: highway=unclassified & area!=yes [0x06 road_class=0 road_speed=3 resolution 21] If you style has a mop-up for unhandled highways, make sure that this isn't triggered Ticker On Sun, 2020-09-13 at 11:09 +0200, DD8KQ wrote: > Hi Ticker > > just for me a hint, how can i ignore this in a style ? > ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes
On 12/09/2020 18:02, Gerd Petermann wrote: Yes, look like mapping errors (mapping for the renderer?). Maybe area:highway=* was meant. I would not change the style for them. I'm not local to these examples but they're clearly mapping for the renderer. Looking at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239754207/history , unclassified makes no sense as two tertiary roads join the A1 here, not unclassified. I _am_ familiar with the ones added by a prolific mapper in Lincolnshire (see e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/378343668/history ) and examples like that are clearly wrong - "area:highway" describes the situation there, and should be used instead. Ticker Berkin said elsewhere in the thread "They are done in a consistent and systematic way by a number of mappers" - I'd agree that the small number of mappers doing this in the UK (maybe 2 or 3?) are consistent and systematic, but unfortunately this mapping is in my experience consistently wrong*. Contacting the original mappers is an excellent idea, but (at least in Lincs, as http://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=125259 shows) may not get a reply. Best Regards, Andy * That's not to say that "highway=unclassified; area=yes" can't ever be correct - it can; but these examples aren't valid examples of it. ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes
Hi Ticker just for me a hint, how can i ignore this in a style ? Am 13.09.2020 um 09:59 schrieb Ticker Berkin: Hi all Checking the GBR, I detect 1865 of these highway areas. They are done in a consistent and systematic way by a number of mappers. I don't think it is a mapping error or an attempt to define the extent of a junction as per the proposed tagging highway=junction. Rather it is some option on the editing tool or some guidelines they are following that says to do this as a way of documenting the changes they have made within the junction area. I'll ask some of the mappers why they are doing it. These constructs can cause invalid routes to be calculated as well as confusing/irrelevant direction pop-ups and I now ignore them in my style. Ticker ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev -- # Viele Grüße und 73 de Manfred Haiduk, DD8KQ e-mail mhai...@t-online.de dd...@gmx.de # ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] highway=unclassified & area=yes
Hi all Checking the GBR, I detect 1865 of these highway areas. They are done in a consistent and systematic way by a number of mappers. I don't think it is a mapping error or an attempt to define the extent of a junction as per the proposed tagging highway=junction. Rather it is some option on the editing tool or some guidelines they are following that says to do this as a way of documenting the changes they have made within the junction area. I'll ask some of the mappers why they are doing it. These constructs can cause invalid routes to be calculated as well as confusing/irrelevant direction pop-ups and I now ignore them in my style. Ticker ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
