[mkgmap-dev] PATCH v2: highwayCount

Fri Feb 22 10:45:14 GMT 2013

Hi,

I did a few more tests to track down why --transparent breaks long distance
routing.
My result: It seems that long distance routing needs the type 0x4b polygons
that 
are created if you don't specify --transparent. 
Reason for this assumption:
When I change mkgmap to add a different type as background (e.g. 0x50 for
forest),
long distance routing is more or less surely broken.
Up to now, --transparent changes two things:
1) it sets a bit in the TRE header file
2) it avoids to create the backgroud polygon(s) with type 0x4b

I am not sure if 2) is needed to get a transparent map. Attached is a small
patch that
changes mkgmap so that it always generates the background polygon.

@Felix: Could you please try this with the --transparent option ? Is the map
transparent or not ? Is long distance routing working ? 

If that doesn't work, another possible solution would be to
disallow--transparent in combination
with --route. I assume that would require to have the --transparent flag for
all other layers?

Ciao,
Gerd

addBackgroud.patch
<http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/file/n5750309/addBackgroud.patch>  

GerdP wrote
> Hi Steve,
> Steve Ratcliffe wrote
>>> @Steve: Do you still work on it?
>> 
>> If you mean the difference with --transparent then I've pretty much 
>> given up on finding the reason. It doesn't make a lot of sense - why is 
>> it different than say removing all the forest polygons? I've not found 
>> anything that mkgmap is doing wrong.
> I also have no idea what is wrong. I think that the NOD data is equal,
> so maybe it is simply related to the size or distance of sub divisions.
> If that is right, I should be able to find a threshold value by adding
> or removing things.
> 
> Gerd

GerdP wrote
> Hi Steve,
> Steve Ratcliffe wrote
>>> @Steve: Do you still work on it?
>> 
>> If you mean the difference with --transparent then I've pretty much 
>> given up on finding the reason. It doesn't make a lot of sense - why is 
>> it different than say removing all the forest polygons? I've not found 
>> anything that mkgmap is doing wrong.
> I also have no idea what is wrong. I think that the NOD data is equal,
> so maybe it is simply related to the size or distance of sub divisions.
> If that is right, I should be able to find a threshold value by adding
> or removing things.
> 
> Gerd

--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/PATCH-v1-highwayCount-tp5748554p5750309.html
Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.