Re: [mkgmap-dev] Why are all the un-named peaks called '6140565'?

2010-03-15 Thread Mark Burton
Steve, > It turns out that the problem is Labels that are empty but not null. All > such labels, however generated, show as whatever label was defined right > after the first empty one. > > The attached patch should fix it. That looks better, thanks. Mark

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Why are all the un-named peaks called '6140565'?

2010-03-15 Thread Steve Ratcliffe
Hi Mark It may be a clue that nat_ref does not occur in the style file at all. As far as I can tell so far, the problem is happening after style processing. Very strange. In StyledConverter.elementSetup() if an element doesn't have a name but it has a ref (ref|int_ref|nat_ref|etc.) the first r

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Why are all the un-named peaks called '6140565'?

2010-03-15 Thread Mark Burton
Hi Steve, > > > > > > > > > > It may be a clue that nat_ref does not occur in the style file at all. > As far as I can tell so far, the problem is happening after style > processing. Very strange. In StyledConverter.elementSetup() if an element doesn't have a name but it has a ref (ref|

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Why are all the un-named peaks called '6140565'?

2010-03-15 Thread Steve Ratcliffe
Hi > > > > It may be a clue that nat_ref does not occur in the style file at all. As far as I can tell so far, the problem is happening after style processing. Very strange. ..Steve ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Why are all the un-named peaks called '6140565'?

2010-03-15 Thread Mark Burton
Hi Clinton, > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Mark Burton wrote: > > > Hey, that's a really great bug, it causes anonymous peaks to be > > named in honour of a bus stop! > > This may be caused by the "def" (default value) and "height" filters. > I believe the statement is attempting the foll

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Why are all the un-named peaks called '6140565'?

2010-03-15 Thread Clinton Gladstone
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Mark Burton wrote: > Hey, that's a really great bug, it causes anonymous peaks to be > named in honour of a bus stop! This may be caused by the "def" (default value) and "height" filters. I believe the statement is attempting the following: 1. ${name|def:} use

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Why are all the un-named peaks called '6140565'?

2010-03-14 Thread Mark Burton
Hi Someoneelse, > Is "6140565" the last name in the .osm file being processed at that > time? I've seen a similar effect with all unnamed natural=peak being > named "YHA Ravenstor" (which happened to be the last name in the file > that I was processing at the time). As to how to fix it; have

Re: [mkgmap-dev] Why are all the un-named peaks called '6140565'?

2010-03-14 Thread Someoneelse
Mark Burton wrote: > Just noticed that in the UK map, points tagged natural=peak that don't > have a name are showing a name of '6140565'. I guess it's something to > do with this rule from the points file: > > natural=peak {name '${name|def:}${ele|height:m=>ft|def:}' } [0x6616 > resolution 18]

[mkgmap-dev] Why are all the un-named peaks called '6140565'?

2010-03-14 Thread Mark Burton
Stylists, Just noticed that in the UK map, points tagged natural=peak that don't have a name are showing a name of '6140565'. I guess it's something to do with this rule from the points file: natural=peak {name '${name|def:}${ele|height:m=>ft|def:}' } [0x6616 resolution 18] The style language