Thanks! will try this tonight
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> don't see a reason why it shouldn't work for a relation
> for a relation you will need an entry in the relations file to copy tags to
> the lines and then process the rules for the lines
> an example I have
don't see a reason why it shouldn't work for a relation
for a relation you will need an entry in the relations file to copy tags to
the lines and then process the rules for the lines
an example I have been playing with for highways. a new tag route_ref is
defined from the relation and applied to th
Marco,
Does this work as a relation?
> #boundaries
>
> boundary=administrative & admin_level<3 [0x1e resolution 14]
> boundary=administrative & admin_level<5 [0x1d resolution 16]
> boundary=administrative & admin_level<7 [0x1d resolution 20]
> boundary=administrative [0x1c resolut
On Aug 3, 2009, at 22:43, Felix Hartmann wrote:
> Or
> highway=* & bridge=yes { name '${name} (${ref}) bridge' | '${ref}
> bridge' | '${name} bridge' }
I'm not sure I understand correctly. Does the above statement not work
at all, or does it just not work when there was a previous matching
st
Hi,
if you look here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.22319&lon=16.591428&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF
you see highway (with junction=roundabout) around leisure=park. Both are in
relation multipolygon. When i look to this in GPS it's two highway inside
each other. Where is problem?
Thanks.
--
S
Yeah that's true, but how to do it better?
I would think a name-file where you can run rules for name, info
sections , phone numbers, etc. seperate from the style-file would be
best. Currently of my lines style-file which consists of 8.000 lines,
7.000 are basically only to get proper naming, i
Hi Felix,
This is not a comment on your proposed scheme but I do believe that the
current handling of name and ref (and the highway shields, etc.) is
completely fucked up. IMHO, munging the element name and its refs
together in the style file is completely bogus.
Cheers,
Mark
__
Some of you have already made patches for the "name" so maybe you know
whether the following would be feasible.
Currently add or set name will delete everything and put in the new
text. the start-with used by Thilo's patches works AFAIK (I never tried
it) also only following highway=* [0x?? le
2009/8/3 Clinton Gladstone :
> I posted a patch for this a while ago. You should be able to find it
> in the mailing list archives.
Hey, yes, I knew I'd seen something like it before. I suppose I just
assumed that it would find its way into svn. I've tried the patch and
it works just fine. Leavin
Hi Clinton,
> > I searched for a complete list of all mkgmap command-line options and
> > what they should do, but I couldn't find a good and up-to-date
> > list. The list in the wiki is much too old.
What I believe we need is some fascist check in the options processing
code that prints a me
On Aug 2, 2009, at 2:26, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I searched for a complete list of all mkgmap command-line options and
> what they should do, but I couldn't find a good and up-to-date
> list. The list in the wiki is much too old.
I grepped the mkgmap source for the following terms:
args.get(
On Aug 3, 2009, at 20:19, Dermot McNally wrote:
> By accident, I've noticed that when areas are converted to POIs,
> address and phone number information (and maybe other stuff) does not
> seem to be preserved.
Hi Dermot,
I posted a patch for this a while ago. You should be able to find it
in
Hello,
I use mkgmap to make Garmin maps for my Nuvi 860T gps. I notice that
POIs which have only a phone number can be used directly with my
bluetooth hands-free phone to call it. However, as soon as there is any
address info attached to the POI as well, the phone number appears as
follows i
Folks,
By accident, I've noticed that when areas are converted to POIs,
address and phone number information (and maybe other stuff) does not
seem to be preserved.
For instance, see here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/4482136
The maps I create can display address and phone number for n
Am 02.08.2009 15:16 Uhr schrieb Steve Ratcliffe:
>> I did not. If I do, the symbols appear correctly. I'm not familiar with
>> neither the Garmin encoding nor mkgmap's handling of it, but would it be
>> possible to add the codes for the symbols to the names in a way that
>> they work with both 6bit
garvan.m...@online.com.kh wrote:
> Quoting Mark Burton :
>
>
>>> Should now be fixed.
>>>
>> Err, that's only for OSM input.
>>
>> For Polish input it's not fixed - you have to fix your data instead.
>> Just make sure that no road is longer than 25Km between nodes. If
>> necessary, add ex
--- Lun 3/8/09, maning sambale ha scritto:
> Da: maning sambale
> Oggetto: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Administrative boundaries
> A: "Development list for mkgmap"
> Data: Lunedì 3 agosto 2009, 10:44
> May I also add, most admin_level
> boundaries around my area use
> relations. How do I use a relatio
Version 1118 was commited by steve on 2009-08-03 09:51:57 +0100 (Mon, 03 Aug
2009)
Make buildings less prominent.
More kinds of barrier.
Allow shop polygons.
-Ondrej Novy
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.or
May I also add, most admin_level boundaries around my area use
relations. How do I use a relation style to show admin level
boundaries
i.e. (or something similar)
admin_level = 6-8 resolution 15
admin_level= 10-15 resolution 2o
On 8/3/09, Lambertus wrote:
> It appears that very low level adminis
It appears that very low level administrative boundaries are rendered
quite prominently using the default Mkgmap style. An example is shown
here: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=31404#p31404
What are the options to reduce the visibility of those boundaries?
_
20 matches
Mail list logo
