[mkgmap-dev] Small holes in boundary coverage

Sun Apr 8 20:51:45 BST 2012

Hi Gerd,

I see a difference in the turn restrictions. It seems that they are not 
added in sorted order.

I've printed out all elements passing the style converter. When printing 
out the restrictions in a sorted order there is no more difference (in 
my printout). So I assume that the binary output is also the same.

I am not sure why the difference does not appear in other tiles.

WanMil

> Hi WanMil,
>
> I've created a new one:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/file/n5624815/identical_output_v2.patch
> identical_output_v2.patch
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
> WanMil wrote
>>
>> Hi Gerd,
>>
>> can you please post again the identical output patch? I cannot find it
>> on my computer and the patch referenced by nabble cannot be found
>> (http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2011q4/013223.html).
>>
>> Thanks!
>> WanMil
>>
>>> Hi WanMil,
>>>
>>> I've tried again.
>>> Reg. the performance improvements I see only small differences, I guess
>>> that's because I use
>>> splitter with default overlap of 2000. I assume the greater the overlap
>>> the
>>> greater is the
>>> improvement of the UnusedElementsRemoverHook ?
>>>
>>> reg. different result:
>>> I've uploaded the tile (sorry, it is very big):
>>> http://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/65/63240022.osm.pbf
>>> I can reproduce the problem with trunk (r2263) (and my
>>> identical_output.patch) using the following parms:
>>> java -Xmx1600m -Xms1600m -jar mkgmap.jar --remove-short-arcs --route
>>> --preserve-element-order 63240022.osm.pbf
>>>
>>> If I comment the call of UnusedElementsRemoverHook I get a different
>>> output
>>> file.
>>> I hope you can reproduce it?
>>>
>>> Gerd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> WanMil wrote
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please, can you review if the UnusedElementsRemoverHook is still
>>>>> useful?
>>>>> With my test data, it is slowing down mkgmap a little bit and I also
>>>>> see
>>>>> a different result for one tile in the UK when I disable it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gerd
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gerd,
>>>>
>>>> I cannot reproduce that the UnusedElementsRemoverHook does not improve
>>>> the speed of mkgmap. Can you please try again?
>>>>
>>>> If you see a different result it should be analysed. So please post your
>>>> tile and your mkgmap parameters and all the details so that I can check
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> WanMil
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>>>> mkgmap-dev at .org
>>>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Small-holes-in-boundary-coverage-tp5569161p5622393.html
>>> Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>>> mkgmap-dev at .org
>>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>> mkgmap-dev at .org
>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Small-holes-in-boundary-coverage-tp5569161p5624815.html
> Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev