[mkgmap-dev] Dead End Check
From Marko Mäkelä marko.makela at iki.fi on Thu Aug 30 15:48:47 BST 2012
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:32:52PM +0200, Felix Hartmann wrote: >While wondering how to best clean up all those micromapping >footway/service/track/path stuff, and thinking about the >mkgmap::length filter, I got the idea, that mkgmap got an dead end >check. >Is there anywhere a description of how it works? As far as I know, it only works on oneways (oneway=*). It will complain about oneways going to or coming from nowhere, or same-direction oneways joining at a node that connects to no other way. I have added some style rules to suppress the dead-end warnings in certain cases. Also, in the core, I suppress the dead-end checks if the start or end node of the way carries a FIXME=* or fixme=* tag. I routinely fix the dead-end warnings (or suppress them by setting fixme=continue) in Finland. Currently there is some polygon breakage, since the license bot took its toll. I am gradually working on fixing the data (in Finland only). >At least the three 4m ones, I would like to get rid of. Why is this so >bad? Well if you make a map without buildings, you'll see the disaster, >short ways going nowhere: I think that a more severe problem are routing islands, because they really break routing. Some mappers seem to think that a highway=pedestrian area is enough and may even delete an overlapping highway=* way as garbage. As far as I know, currently mkgmap does not check for routing islands. It might be hard to avoid false positives near tile (or map extract) borders. If we ignore that, is it computationally expensive to detect routing islands? (Run Tarjan's algorithm and complain if there are several strongly connected components in the routing graph, perhaps?) Best regards, Marko
- Previous message: [mkgmap-dev] Dead End Check
- Next message: [mkgmap-dev] Dead End Check
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list