[mkgmap-dev] Request to rollback at least rev 2747 - or give the access part a complete rework, as of right now it's broken...

Thu Oct 17 17:20:29 BST 2013

> addaccess / setaccess = either it's not working, or I don't understand
> it! - merge-roads branch

It's not yet documented so it's not a shame :-)

mkgmap:access is no longer used.

addaccess no
    is a shortcut for
add mkgmap:foot='no'; add mkgmap:car='no'; add mkgmap:bike='no'; add 
mkgmap:bus='no'; add mkgmap:taxi='no'; add mkgmap:truck='no'; add 
mkgmap:emergency='no'; add mkgmap:delivery='no'; add 
mkgmap:throughroute='no';

setaccess no
    is a shortcut for
set mkgmap:foot='no'; set mkgmap:car='no'; set mkgmap:bike='no'; set 
mkgmap:bus='no'; set mkgmap:taxi='no'; set mkgmap:truck='no'; set 
mkgmap:emergency='no'; set mkgmap:delivery='no'; set 
mkgmap:throughroute='no';

Mapping multiple values to 'no' can be easily done with the subst operator:

bicycle=*    { set mkgmap:bike='${bicycle|subst:private=>no}' }

Please have a look at the inc/access file in the default style. It might 
give you some ideas how to assign the access fields.

WanMil

>
> So, today for the first time since a couple of weeks I had full day time
> to work through mkgmap changes,
> and I must say I don't understand the addaccess / setaccess concept at all.
>
> mkgmap:access is far better, the intention of making styles-files easier
> by addaccess/setaccess definitely turned wrong, or I don't understand it...
>
> How can I mass replace the old rules? Or better, how can I replace this
> old rule at all? I don't see how this is possible now.
>
> e.g.
> ( mkgmap:access=no | mkgmap:access=private ) & ( mkgmap:bicycle=yes |
> mkgmap:bicycle=permissive ) {delete mkgmap:access} ?
>
> (XXXX | YYYY & ( mkgmap:bicycle=yes | mkgmap:bicycle=permissive ) {????}
> # I put mkgmap:bicycle here, because it makes much more sense than
> mkgmap:bike....
>
> (setaccess=no | setaccess=private) & ( mkgmap:bicycle=yes |
> mkgmap:bicycle=permissive ) {????} ?
>
> 1. XXXX : testing for access=no is wrong, because I don't want to test
> on what has been in the data, but what value I previously set. And no -
> setting a second key to verify what happend using addaccess setaccess
> would completly destroy any making it simpler...
> Therefore I suppose now there is one term, and if I put it in {} then it
> means an action, but if it's not, then it means it is a test. Very very
> bad idea too.
>
>
> 2. YYYY: well as long as "setaccess private" works - and you can search
> for it by setaccess=private, it's still the same problematic case as above.
>
>
> 3. ???? {delete setaccess} what about if it was using add? It makes no
> sense at all. And as I often wrote before, there is a difference between
> setaccess=yes and setaccess not existing.
>
>
>
> 4. As for a complete rework, I still don't see why the old system needed
> to be changed! There is no new functionality at all, mkgmap didn't get
> faster but slower, and style-files get much more complicated!
> If it's about making it possible to merge more roads, then I still don't
> see it. mgkmap shouldn't look if the tags in the data are the same, but
> if the outcome as it will be put into the map, is the same.
> So yes, also for the old notation a highway=primary & bicycle=private
> should be merged with a highway=primary & bicycle=no, but not with
> highway=primary & bicycle=yes...
>
> I reworked my style to use mkgamp:?? notation, so going back will mean
> again lot's of hours of work (or alternatively trying to backport all
> changes since that change), so I would be happy if we keep mkgmap:??,
> but I think the easiest would be to keep the old notation system, and
> add a file to the style-file where you can define how e.g. private or
> destination are handled (yes or no).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>