Yesterday I tested pbf input for mkgmap for the first time. Map was
built apparently without errors, but using the resulting map on
MapSource I get a suboptimal route, compared with the one I get using
osm as input. I used portugal.osm and portugal.osm.pbf from geofabrik
for the test. Today geo
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:58:26PM +0200, Carlos Dávila wrote:
>Today geofabrik is offering corrupt excerpts, so I can't
>make further tests by now.
Today geofabrik is only offering *.osm.pbf files, no *.osm.bz2 files.
Do you have any suggestion how to implement the following with the PBF
format
On 19.10.2010 21:28, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:58:26PM +0200, Carlos Dávila wrote:
>> Today geofabrik is offering corrupt excerpts, so I can't
>> make further tests by now.
> Today geofabrik is only offering *.osm.pbf files, no *.osm.bz2 files.
>
> Do you have any suggestio
On 19/10/10 15:58, Carlos Dávila wrote:
> Yesterday I tested pbf input for mkgmap for the first time. Map was
> built apparently without errors, but using the resulting map on
> MapSource I get a suboptimal route, compared with the one I get using
> osm as input. I used portugal.osm and portugal.os
> Should the pbf format only be used as input for the splitter?
> Or is the splitter not needed anymore as we move onto osm.pbf??
Well mkgmap can now read .pbf, but it doesn't do any splitting, so if
the file is large enough you still need to split it. Splitter will have
to produce .pbf output
On 19.10.2010 22:06, Steve Ratcliffe wrote:
> On 19/10/10 15:58, Carlos Dávila wrote:
>> Yesterday I tested pbf input for mkgmap for the first time. Map was
>> built apparently without errors, but using the resulting map on
>> MapSource I get a suboptimal route, compared with the one I get using
> How comes that --preserve-element-order is still doing anything???
> As inside the style-file you can't place to rules to be enacted at the
It has nothing to do with the order that the style rules take effect.
If you use the option then the elements will be written to the map in
the same order
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Steve Ratcliffe wrote:
> On 19/10/10 15:58, Carlos Dávila wrote:
> > Yesterday I tested pbf input for mkgmap for the first time. Map was
> > built apparently without errors, but using the resulting map on
> > MapSource I get a suboptimal route, compared with the on
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Steve Ratcliffe wrote:
>
> > Should the pbf format only be used as input for the splitter?
> > Or is the splitter not needed anymore as we move onto osm.pbf??
>
> Well mkgmap can now read .pbf, but it doesn't do any splitting, so if
> the file is large enough you s
Hi Scott
> The results should be identical comparing OSM versus PBF with or without
> that flag. Converting from osm to pbf with the default flags should
> preserve everything in the origional OSM file, including precision of
> coordinates, element order, metadata, tags, timestamps, etc. (The for
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:13:37PM +0100, Steve Ratcliffe wrote:
>But now you mention it I can't think of why there should be a
>difference, since all the code that matters is common between the two.
>I'll take a look.
Are the .osm.bz2 and .osm.pbf files identical to begin with? Today,
Geofabr
On 20/10/10 11:04, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
> Are the .osm.bz2 and .osm.pbf files identical to begin with? Today,
> Geofabrik offers files with quite different timestamps:
>
> portugal.osm.bz2 20-Oct-2010 00:2013M
> portugal.osm.pbf 20-Oct-2010 07:17 7.1M
I can't speak for the e
Marko wrote:
> Do you have any suggestion how to implement the following with the
> PBF format:
>
At least as a temporary solution, try changing
bzip2 -dc "$OSM_BZ2"|
to
osmosis --rb "$OSM_PBF" --wx - |
In other words you use osmosis to convert from .osm.pbf to .osm; and
using pipeline feature
El 19/10/10 22:06, Steve Ratcliffe escribió:
> On 19/10/10 15:58, Carlos Dávila wrote:
>
>> Yesterday I tested pbf input for mkgmap for the first time. Map was
>> built apparently without errors, but using the resulting map on
>> MapSource I get a suboptimal route, compared with the one I get u
> I have repeated the test with today's portugal osm and pbf files from
> geofabrik and these are the results:
> -Calculated routes are the same with or without --preserve-element-order
> for each osm pair and pbf pair.
> -2 of 3 tested routes are worse with the pbf generated map.
> -pbf generated
El 20/10/10 17:15, Steve Ratcliffe escribió:
>
>> I have repeated the test with today's portugal osm and pbf files from
>> geofabrik and these are the results:
>> -Calculated routes are the same with or without --preserve-element-order
>> for each osm pair and pbf pair.
>> -2 of 3 tested routes
Hi
Thanks, by process of elimination I found that
> --link-pois-to-ways \
causes the files to be different. This deals with nodes that have
an access, barrier or highway tag, so could well affect routing. Does
that make sense in the sub-optimal routes you see?
This is in code that is common
Hi
> --link-pois-to-ways \
I couldn't resist looking at it, and I have fixed the issue that
caused the difference with this option.
Could you check the routing again?
Thanks
..Steve
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://
El 21/10/10 00:09, st...@parabola.me.uk escribió:
> Hi
>
>
>> --link-pois-to-ways \
>>
> I couldn't resist looking at it, and I have fixed the issue that
> caused the difference with this option.
>
> Could you check the routing again?
Great!!!
Now routing works as expected. Thanks for the
19 matches
Mail list logo
