Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

2019-10-12 Thread Ticker Berkin
Hi Gerd I was thinking of a threshold (maybe < 5) and then not adding any of them to NOD. The reason is that a while ago I found many instances where tracks lead up to the edge of car-parks but didn't join to each other or the car -park access road and so walking routing, where one was expected t

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

2019-10-12 Thread Gerd Petermann
Ticker Berkin wrote > Do you attempt to isolate small road networks that are not connected to > the rest of the system or just a single road? Not yet. Do you think about some kind of threshold value giving the minimal number of connections or maybe a bbox size or a sum of road lengths? if the isol

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

2019-10-12 Thread Ticker Berkin
Hi Gerd Sorry - I'd misunderstood the intention of change 2, but the new version and its messages has clarified it for me. Without --x-all-roads-to-nod, it does the stop the "Route Calculation Errors" that I get with the trunk version when trying to navigate to/from an unconnected road. GMAPSUPP

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

2019-10-12 Thread Gerd Petermann
Hi Ticker, I just committed r4302, please try with that. Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin Gesendet: Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 17:07 An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD Hi Gerd I'

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

2019-10-12 Thread Ticker Berkin
Hi Gerd I'm just starting to test this, but looking through the log lines (I get 1260 of them for 2 tiles) like: SEVE: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.StyledConverter 74210001.osm.pbf: check: road without connection is not written to NOD Newport to Cowes cycleway (OSM id 562475661) 50.749482,-1.2

Re: [mkgmap-dev] [mkgmap-svn] Commit r4300: experimental code to reduce NOD size (option --routable)

2019-10-12 Thread Gerd Petermann
Hi Ticker, just try it. Routing seems to work as well. Maybe there is a difference in estimated times. Can't test it right now because my dev PC seems to be broken, it doesn't boot anymore :( Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin Gesendet

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

2019-10-12 Thread Gerd Petermann
Hi Ticker, see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/download/mkgmap-NET-no-NOD-r4301.zip You just have scroll down on the normal download page to see the branch builds. Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin Gesendet: Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 13:57 An

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

2019-10-12 Thread Ticker Berkin
Hi Gerd Is there a build available for this that I can download, rather than creating a branch. Thanks Ticker On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 10:17 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Hi all, > > I've tried to work out under what conditions we need routing nodes > when using OSM input (not polish *mp): > See

Re: [mkgmap-dev] [mkgmap-svn] Commit r4300: experimental code to reduce NOD size (option --routable)

2019-10-12 Thread Ticker Berkin
Hi Gerd (I started writing this before your next post arrived) Assuming I understand the resultant behaviour correctly concerning the 2nd change: I'm against the idea not having NODs for terminal roads becoming the default. It may not have obvious effects in heavily built up areas, but elsewhere,

[mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

2019-10-12 Thread Gerd Petermann
Hi all, I've tried to work out under what conditions we need routing nodes when using OSM input (not polish *mp): See http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=4300 for details. Please try the new version with a few tiles (maybe 4). The version r4301 produces some messag