[mkgmap-dev] Numbering loss in the version which came after the r3602

Wed Aug 19 12:00:34 BST 2015

So... Does this means that you fix it?
It's good to hear this, because in that example I sent, in fact there was an error in data. But as soon I share this in my group, I receive a storm of examples were the data are similar that, but aren't problem in data.

Alexandre 

(Enviado via iPad)

> Em 19/08/2015, às 02:49, Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com> escreveu:
> 
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> okay, good to hear that. I decided to make mkgmap tests regarding addr:interpolation ways rather strict
> because in some areas (mostly Canada) these errors appear extremely often,
> caused by bad imports.
> Seems to be a generel problem of OSM generators ;-)
> 
> Gerd
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:40:40 -0300
> From: alexandre.loss at gmail.com
> To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> CC: Adm_Tec_Tracksource at googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Numbering loss in the version which came after the	r3602
> 
> Hi Gerd,
> 
> I'm sorry the delay to answer, but I came on vacation and had many pending issues waiting for me.
> Regard this specific issue, your interpretation of the problem of duplication/overlap in the numbering interpolation is correct. In fact the data doesn't make sense and I agree with you that this case is an error in the data.
> 
> To prove this, I got the short example sent before and correctly input the numbers eliminating the overlapping as shown below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then I compiled the map with mkgmap versions 3612 and 3629 (the last one I found) and the numbers were not "missed" this time, proving you theory.
> 
> Snapshot taken form MapSource of a map compiled wiht mkgmap r3612
> 
> 
> Snapshot taken form MapSource of a map compiled wiht mkgmap r3629
> <image.png>
> 
> So I think we can close the case and I have some work do clean the maps of my group.
> 
> Thanks again for your attention and analysis.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Alexandre Loss
> 
> 2015-07-21 9:06 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Loss <alexandre.loss at gmail.com>:
> Hi Gerd and Steve,
> 
> Thanks by your attention.
> I'm in vocation now and without access to my computer, so I can't provide more information if you need till my return in beginning of August.
> But I think that the data is correct because in despite the streets have the same name, they are different road since they aren't connect (there is a gap / a block between them).
> So I believe that the algo couldn't consider the name of street.
> But I understand your point of view, since it looks that can have a number overlapping/shadow of both streets, what would be a logical error.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can make more  test these days but as soon I come back I will.
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Alexandre
> 
> (Enviado via iPad)
> 
> Em 21/07/2015, às 06:21, Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com> escreveu:
> 
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> I think the problem here is that you have two ways named "RUA PORTO ALEGRE",
> one with id 2, the other with id 46, and both are in the same city.
> So far no problem, but the addr:interpolation ways on those two roads
> also produce a bunch of duplicate numbers. 
> As a result, the new algo decides to ignore them.
> Unfortunately, the log 
> FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberGenerator  e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: keeping duplicate numbers assigned to different roads in cluster  RUA PORTO ALEGRE 2(0) 2(1)
> FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberGenerator  e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: keeping duplicate numbers assigned to different roads in cluster  RUA PORTO ALEGRE 3(0) 3(1)
> FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl  e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13 800..2, step=2 generated even interpolated number(s) for id=2, RUA PORTO ALEGRE
> FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl  e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14 801..3, step=2 generated odd interpolated number(s) for id=2, RUA PORTO ALEGRE
> FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl  e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65 419..205, step=2 generated odd interpolated number(s) for id=46, RUA PORTO ALEGRE
> FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl  e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65 203..3, step=2 generated odd interpolated number(s) for id=46, RUA PORTO ALEGRE
> FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl  e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/66 418..204, step=2 generated even interpolated number(s) for id=46, RUA PORTO ALEGRE
> FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl  e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/66 202..2, step=2 generated even interpolated number(s) for id=46, RUA PORTO ALEGRE
> FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberGenerator  e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: found problems with interpolated numbers from addr:interpolations ways for roads with name RUA PORTO ALEGRE
> 
> 
> is not very clear about the reason and the final action, but I think the data is not okay and the algo is correct
> to ignore it.
> 
> What do you think?
> Gerd
> 
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:28:04 -0300
> From: alexandre.loss at gmail.com
> To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> CC: Adm_Tec_Tracksource at googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Numbering loss in the version which came after the	r3602
> 
> Hi Andrzej,
> 
> Ok, thank you for your time and analyses.
> Lets wait for Gerd.
> 
> regards,
> Alexandre
> 
> 
> 2015-06-17 13:13 GMT-03:00 Andrzej Popowski <popej at poczta.onet.pl>:
> Hi Alexandre,
> 
> I confirm, that there is no address on your map with current mkgmap. Data seems to be OK, so lets wait for Gerd opinion.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Andrzej
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20150819/fb9d85f3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 35188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20150819/fb9d85f3/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 27500 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20150819/fb9d85f3/attachment-0003.png>