[mkgmap-dev] Problem with aeroway=aerodrome as a relation

Thu Sep 24 13:38:10 BST 2015

Hi Marcio,

yes, I found similar results. Without a typ file, the 0x07 polygon seems to have the higher draw priority.

Gerd

From: thundercel at gpsinfo.com.br
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 09:35:30 -0300
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Problem with aeroway=aerodrome as a relation

Hi Gerd,
assisting Nelson, using the 
default style we have ever encountered the first problem is the style does not look landuse = grass 
forcing us to include in inc / landuse_polygons line landuse = 
grass [0x17 resolution 20].

Using the default style (with grass included) we only have 
succeeded using the "comment out" in the 
following polygons lines 
of "default 
style":

:# aeroway=airport [0x07 
resolution 20]
# aeroway=aerodrome [0x07 resolution 20]

Marcio

From: Gerd Petermann 
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 4:32 AM
To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk 

Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Problem with aeroway=aerodrome as a 
relation

Hi Nelson,

there is no special java code in mkgmap to treat 
aeroways.
I guess you don't use the default style, so I can't say what goes 
wrong.
A good tool to find out what mkgmap writes to the img file 
is
GPSMapEdit.
Use it to open the corresponding img file and double click 
into the area
you want to analyse. It shows you what Garmin type the area 
has.
Press escape to close the dialog box followed by
delete to remove 
that polygon. Repeat this process until GPSMapEdit 
shows something 
like
"Area of map coverage (0x4b, polygon)"

If you do this for both 
img files (the good and the bad one) you
should be able to find out what's 
different.

Gerd

> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:45:05 -0300
> From: 
naoliv at gmail.com
> To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> Subject: 
[mkgmap-dev] Problem with aeroway=aerodrome as a relation
> 
> Could 
somehow mkgmap have an issue with aeroway=aerodrome as a
> relation? 
(instead a simple closed way)
> 
> For example, this airport 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90834745
> have its internal grasses 
properly represented like here:
> 
http://cocardl.com.br/pv/viracopos.jpg
> 
> On the other hand, this 
airport
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3896781 seems to overlap 
every
> internal feature (like grasses): 
http://cocardl.com.br/pv/galeao.jpg
> 
> Is mkgmap giving different 
treatments for aeroway=aerodrome as a
> closed way and as a 
relation?

_______________________________________________
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/20150924/edc09ca9/attachment.html>