<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Hi Marko,<br><br>found a few special cases:<br>1) the new dead-end-check is done before merging roads, so sometimes the<br>reported way ids in the old RouteNode check refer to merged roads.<br>When you want to compare results you should use --x-no-mergeroads<br>so that you see the correct way ids.<br>2) The new check did not ignore points that lie on the boundary, only those<br>that were outside of the tile boundary<br>3) The new check did not recognize P-shaped oneways as self-connecting.<br>4) The new check used a different (wrong) interpretation of the meaning of the LEVEL<br>parameter in --report-dead-ends=LEVEL option.<br><br>Attached is a new version of the patch.<br>One possible problem case in the new check: If a oneway X is connected to a <br>way Y that has just one (or more) identical points, the dead-end-check<br>for X will say that the way is not a dead end, but later the way Y will be deleted<br>with a corresponding warning and the old dead-end-check reports<br>the dead-end for way X.<br>I think this is okay as long as you see the warning for way Y.<br><br>Ciao,<br>Gerd<br><br><div>> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 11:59:27 -0800<br>> From: gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com<br>> To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Diagnostic warnings for dead-end oneway highway=service<br>> <br>> Hi Marko,<br>> <br>> okay, thanks for the explanation. I'll look at the differences tomorrow.<br>> <br>> Gerd<br>> <br>> Marko Mäkelä wrote<br>> > On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 11:19:06AM -0800, GerdP wrote:<br>> >>Hi Marko,<br>> >><br>> >>please check:<br>> >><br>> >>Marko Mäkelä wrote<br>> >>> * Different coordinates for the 13 old messages (as expected; this is<br>> >>> thanks to the higher precision)<br>> >><br>> >>I don't yet see a reason for different coordinates. Did you really compare<br>> >>the output one program execution?<br>> >>Or did you use a different program for the "old" messages?<br>> > <br>> > I did 2 comparisons with the output from 2 runs:<br>> > <br>> > With mkgmap/trunk r2916<br>> > With mkgmap/branches/high-prec-coord r2930 and your patch<br>> > <br>> > First, I compared the output of trunk to the output of branch, using the <br>> > finland.osm.pbf from Geofabrik dated today, 02:16 UTC.<br>> > <br>> > There were 2 differences:<br>> > <br>> > (a) Variation of the coordinates in the 13 old-style messages<br>> > (b) Addition of 10 new-style messages<br>> > <br>> > This was to be expected.<br>> > <br>> > What was not expected was the difference 13 vs. 10. To diagnose it,<br>> > I performed another comparison within the output of the patched branch. <br>> > Many of the "old" messages had direct counterparts in the "new" <br>> > messages, but some "new" messages for "old" messages were missing, and <br>> > some were extra (only "new" message for the way, no "old" one).<br>> > <br>> > In my previous message, I listed the OSM way IDs for both cases. I fixed <br>> > one error (for one extra "new" message) in the OSM database, but I left <br>> > the others intact, so that we will have some errors in the next <br>> > finland.osm.pbf to check against.<br>> > <br>> > Marko<br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > mkgmap-dev mailing list<br>> <br>> > mkgmap-dev@.org<br>> <br>> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> --<br>> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Diagnostic-warnings-for-dead-end-oneway-highway-service-tp5791229p5791507.html<br>> Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> mkgmap-dev mailing list<br>> mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev<br></div> </div></body>
</html>