[mkgmap-dev] invalid types in check-styles

Mon Dec 30 16:04:31 GMT 2013

Hi Gerd

0x11f is the same as 0x11f00 - both have been valid expressions in the past.

However, the style checker tells me that 11f is invalid.
This applies to I think all extended types , ie it tells me 10A (without 
the 00) is invalid.
It accepts 10A00 but not 10A
It accepts 11F00 but not 11F
I agree 10A00 is the more accurate way of defining an extended line but 
it might be confusing to flag them as invalid.

r

Nick

On 30/12/2013 15:49, GerdP [via GIS] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yes, 0x11f00 is recognized as an extended type.
> What bug do you mean?
> Should mkgmap interpret 0x11f as 0x11f00
> when used in the lines or polygons file?
>
> Gerd
>
> > Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 02:07:24 -0800
>
> > From: [hidden email] </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5791203&i=0>
> > To: [hidden email] </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5791203&i=1>
> > Subject: [mkgmap-dev] invalid types in check-styles
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Interesting 'bug' when using check-styles.
> >
> > It had me foxed as it actually by chance highlighted lines I didn't 
> use in
> > my TYP file.
> >
> > invalid type 0x11f for POLYLINE
> >
> > It transpires that when replacing 11f with 11f00 the type number is
> > correctly identified as valid.
> > I checked it with several lines, with and without the zero subtypes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context: 
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/invalid-types-in-check-styles-tp5791157.html
> > Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > _______________________________________________
> > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > [hidden email] </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5791203&i=2>
> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [hidden email] </user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=5791203&i=3>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the 
> discussion below:
> http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/invalid-types-in-check-styles-tp5791157p5791203.html 
>
> To unsubscribe from invalid types in check-styles, click here 
> <http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=5791157&code=b3NtQHBpbm5zLmNvLnVrfDU3OTExNTd8MTM1NTM3MTE1MQ==>.
> NAML 
> <http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml> 
>

--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/invalid-types-in-check-styles-tp5791157p5791212.html
Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20131230/5c2bd921/attachment.html>