<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 Colin,<br><br>It would not be complicated to implement, but I fear the documentation.<br>Today I've tested with Brazil, once with levels 4-11, once with 5-11.<br>Size difference was only 10MB (sum for all 27 tiles), <br>so I don't expect a big change in the UK<br>when you would use e.g. 6-11.<br><br>I'll think about a good option name and docu for it,<br>if I find one I'll add it.<br>Suggestions are wellcome.<br><br>Gerd<br><br><div><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:44:32 +0200<br>From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl<br>To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities<br><br>
Well, I am thinking that the whole of the boundary of Scotland for example (level 5 is the region, level 4 is the nation - they are coterminous) will add an enormous overhead to all the tiles in Scotland. Maybe it isn't worth it, especially if you say it is complex to implement.<BR>
As an aside, what happens to tiles which are entirely enclosed by a boundary, without there being a node within the tile?<BR>
//colin<BR>
<div> </div>
On 2015-05-21 18:31, Gerd Petermann wrote:<BR>
<blockquote style="padding-left:5px;border-left:#1010ff 2px solid;">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Colin,<br><br>what difference do you expect when you <br>are able to configure that value?<br>I'd expect a few MB difference in the OSM file size<br>and nearly no difference in mkgmap output,<br>on the other hand it woud be another complicated<br>option.<br><br>Gerd<br><br>
<div><hr id="ecxstopSpelling">Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:25:12 +0200<br>From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl<br>To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities<br><br> Could the admin_levels be made configurable in some way? There are considerable differences in the size of these areas between different countries. I am thinking particularly of the lower admin_level (5) which might be better set to 6 (or even 8) in the UK. Level 5 corresponds to "regions" which are basically only for statistics and some government stuff - not many people would know what region they are in (except they could probably guess because they are called things like "South East England"). Level 6 corresponds to Counties, and everyone uses them.<br> //colin<br>
<div> </div>
On 2015-05-21 17:00, Gerd Petermann wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="padding-left:5px;border-left:#1010ff 2px solid;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Andrzej,<br><br>I tried using --boundary-tags=administrative <br>for splitter, the amount of additional data depends<br>on the size of the largest boundaries.<br><br>Attached is a small patch that changes splitter so<br>that it keeps administrative boundaries complete<br>when the admin_level is between 5 and 11 (including).<br><br>This doesn't add much data to the output files<br>in comparison to --boundary-tags=administrative <br>when splitting e.g. Brazil with --max-nodes=800000<br>and --output=o5m:<br>a) r422 output size: ~ 359 M <br>b) patched version : ~381 M <br>c) unpatched r422 with --boundary-tags=administrative: 402 M<br><br>I've also tested the effect on mkgmap.<br>As expected, version a) produces some wrong / duplicate POI,<br>but I don't see them for b) or c).<br>The throughput is nearly identical, and the final img size is also almost equal.<br><br>So, I think the patch is the best compromise.<br><br>Gerd<br><br><br>
<div>> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:56:43 +0200<br>> From: popej@poczta.onet.pl<br>> To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities<br>> <br>> Hi Gerd,<br>> <br>> > Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only<br>> > exclude some boundary relations.<br>> <br>> I see. But maybe potential increase wouldn't be that big, if you add <br>> boundaries?<br>> <br>> Or maybe you can preserve only some levels of boundaries?<br>> <br>> Or you can use boundary data form --bounds option?<br>> <br>> Anyway, I prefer version 1 - keep complete relation, that could be <br>> useful for mkgmap.<br>> <br>> -- <br>> Best regards,<br>> Andrzej<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> mkgmap-dev mailing list<br>> mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk">mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk</a>
<a href="http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev" target="_blank">http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev</div>
</div>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
<a href="mailto:mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk">mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk</a>
<a href="http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev" target="_blank">http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev</div> </div></body>
</html>