[mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

Sat Oct 19 15:01:12 BST 2019

Hi Randolph,

I don't see anything special in this area. Please describe more detailed what you are trying to do.
Tell us the input for splitter and the options in use.
What error message do you see?

It seems this is more related to splitter, not the NET-no-NOD branch? If yes, please open a new thread for this.

Gerd

________________________________________
Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Randolph J. Herber <army.bronze.star at gmail.com>
Gesendet: Samstag, 19. Oktober 2019 15:51
An: Development list for mkgmap; Ticker Berkin
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD

There is an area like that is the older part of Port Said near Cairo,
Egypt, that blows up map making in mkgmap.

Examine the area in the vicinity of 31.0755N 32.2661E. There are many
single block streets.

This causes problems as there is no parameter setting a limit on the
number of ways similar to the parameter setting a limit on the number of
nodes in a tile. In this area, there are almost half as many ways as
there are nodes.

Perhaps, after the initial tile split in splitter, if the number of ways
is excessive, just that tile could be split until the number of ways
becomes "reasonable."

Randolph J. Herber

On 10/18/2019 9:28 AM, Ticker Berkin wrote:
> Hi Gerd
>
> That runs OK.
>
> As before, I get lots of 2 node roads - often bridges over streams in
> open land, and quite a few (about 1/10 the number of the 2 noders) are
> 3 and 4 nodes - frequently paths between buildings in schools /
> campuses and short bits of path at either end of the bridges in open
> land.
>
> I upped the test from 5 to 10 and got more of the same + networks of
> short paths on golf courses, walkways on piers (which should have been
> connected to something), paths in an enclosed quadrangle, etc, etc
>
> All of these I would consider to be a hindrance to route calculations.
>
> Having an option, defaulting to, say, 10, to stop these road-islands
> being added to NOD must be a good idea. Setting the value to 0 would
> give the current behaviour
>
> Ticker
>
> On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 12:35 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>> Hi Ticker,
>>
>> here is the patch without recursive call.
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag
>> von Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Oktober 2019 12:46
>> An: Development list for mkgmap
>> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD
>>
>> Hi Ticker,
>>
>> thanks for testing. I'll work on a patch without recursive calls.
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag
>> von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap at jagit.co.uk>
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Oktober 2019 12:41
>> An: Development list for mkgmap
>> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD
>>
>> Hi Gerd
>>
>> I've applied the patch to my 'current' version and tried running it
>> but
>> it gives:
>>
>> java.lang.StackOverflowError
>>          at
>> uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.net.RouteNode.visitNet(RouteNode.java:938)
>>          at
>> uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.net.RouteNode.visitNet(RouteNode.java:941)
>> ...  1020 lines like this ...
>>          at
>> uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.net.RouteNode.visitNet(RouteNode.java:941)
>>          at
>> uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.net.RouteNode.visitNet(RouteNode.java:941)
>> Exiting - if you want to carry on regardless, use the --keep-going
>> option
>>
>> My source had the patches "avoid-to-split-via-ways.patch" and
>> "only_with_via_ways.patch". I can remove these and try again if you
>> think there might be an interaction.
>>
>> I don't think there is a need to try and check on islands of
>> different
>> access modes; the apparent behaviour of my device is that it finds
>> the
>> closest highway of any type to get into or out of the main road
>> network. ie, if here is a footpath closer to the destination that any
>> motor-vehicle road, car route planning will direct me onto it.
>>
>> Ticker
>>
>> On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 09:25 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>>> Hi Ticker,
>>>
>>> please check: attached is a simple patch that implements the
>>> calculation of routing islands.
>>> It just reports islands with less than 5 routing nodes and the
>>> position of one of the nodes.
>>> It ignores such islands which have at least one node that is a
>>> boundary node.
>>> Remember that we also create nodes oncountry borders. Maybe those
>>> should be ignored here?
>>>
>>> A more detailed test might also check the access attributes, so
>>> that
>>> we report islands for pedestrian, bicycle etc.
>>>
>>> The patch doesn't change the data written to the img files. Please
>>> play with it and let me know how it works for you.
>>>
>>> Gerd
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces at lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag
>>> von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap at jagit.co.uk>
>>> Gesendet: Samstag, 12. Oktober 2019 19:34
>>> An: Development list for mkgmap
>>> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Please test branch NET-no-NOD
>>>
>>> Hi Gerd
>>>
>>> I was thinking of a threshold (maybe < 5) and then not adding any
>>> of
>>> them to NOD.
>>>
>>> The reason is that a while ago I found many instances where tracks
>>> lead
>>> up to the edge of car-parks but didn't join to each other or the
>>> car
>>> -park access road and so walking routing, where one was expected to
>>> cross the car-park, didn't work. I tried adding a footway around
>>> the
>>> edge of the car-park and this helped in a lot of cases but I got
>>> driving route-calculation-error in or out of the car-park if the
>>> access
>>> road wasn't correctly specified. Your latest change will help in a
>>> lot
>>> of instances but sometimes there car-park was defined by more than
>>> 1
>>> line.
>>>
>>> Ticker
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2019-10-12 at 10:10 -0700, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>>>> Ticker Berkin wrote
>>>>> Do you attempt to isolate small road networks that are not
>>>>> connected to
>>>>> the rest of the system or just a single road?
>>>> Not yet. Do you think about some kind of threshold value giving
>>>> the
>>>> minimal
>>>> number of connections or maybe a bbox size or a sum of road
>>>> lengths?
>>>> if the
>>>> isolated network is "small" we might not add any of its roads to
>>>> NOD.
>>>> Is that what you think about?
>>>>
>>>> Gerd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from:
>>>> http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Mkgmap-Development-f5324443.html
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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