[mkgmap-dev] Update on missing POI Labels on some devices and some questions...

Sat Dec 7 19:17:35 GMT 2024

*

Thanks everyone for the input.  If I understand correctly, there seems 
to be no universal POI types across all devices (when I look at some of 
the referenced lists, there seems to be a small bit of consistency with 
the 0x01...0x11?) types.  However, as I have seen in practice, some of 
the newer devices such as XT2/Tread seem to not even follow these 
"standards" (the XT2 and Tread definitely do not display text for the 
well-known 0x1400 type).  In my particular case, I need (only) one POI 
type that will always display a big text label and ideally, no icon (I'm 
settled for now on 0x1E00 which seems to work across all devices I care 
about (until garmin releases some new device)). At the risk of repeating 
what I have previously asked, can anyone explain to me:

  *

    Assuming there's no consistency across devices, how do the OSM
    generated maps work across devices? Do they not? (I'm not an OSM
    expert by any means). How the heck does OSM always know a text label
    will be displayed on every device for a given POI type?  When OSM
    maps are generated does the creator specify a device type so that
    internal OSM type maps can be used (sorry for my ignorance of how
    OSM works).  In thinking more about this, does OSM generate a TYP
    file that defines custom point types for all needed icons so they
    work across all devices? Seems like that is the only way any of this
    could work.

  *

    Even more perplexing, does this mean that garmin must release
    different versions of maps for each device class (say a US topo)?  I
    never buy garmin maps so maybe I have missed this.  When I look
    online to buy the garmin 100k topo
    <https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/127633#requirements>, it seems it
    works for all devices.

  *

    Finally, and I asked this before, is there any mkgmap capabilities I
    can get to using the .osm input as opposed to the mp file format
    (assuming I generate TYP files)?  I ask this because I want to
    potentially save myself from trying to dive very deep into the
    non-mp file stuff if there's nothing to be gained.

  *

    And finally, just to vent here, why in God's name would a
    manufacturer ever create such a mess???  Seems like a real headache
    even for them, let alone us reverse-engineers ;)

Thanks again for your patience.  As you can tell, I am a blind man 
stumbling around in a dark room here.

*
On 12/7/2024 8:07 AM, osm wrote:
> I agree with Ticker; there is also something else which MAY help:
>
> If your Garmin came with maps its worth checking which points do show up.
>
>  A TYP file may be included into the gmapsupp which will should reveal
> some of the types used - Gmaptool can export this supfile
>
> Regards
>
> Nick
>
> On 07/12/2024 15:52, Ticker Berkin wrote:
>> Hi Scott
>>
>> There is some consistency across Garmin models I've come across for a 
>> set of
>> standard POIs that have a (semi-)defined meaning; but I don't know if 
>> Garmin are
>> breaking this with devices like XT, Tread...
>>
>> By semi-defined I mean they respond to appropriate 'FIND' searches 
>> and some
>> devices actually show what considers the POI to be. There are various 
>> lists of
>> these around the internet and, from a mkgmap distribution,
>> ./examples/styles/default/points shows usage.
>>
>> Sticking to these can make a reasonably well-featured map that works 
>> on many
>> devices.
>>
>> Many POI types don't show at low resolution!
>>
>> For the POI you've mentioned, I've noted from experimentation:
>>   0x14 No icon. Country. Big font. no subtypes    {major country}
>>   0x1e No icon. has name. State {province/region}. no subtypes
>>
>> I don't think you get any difference in the final map and behaviour 
>> whether the
>> input is MP or from OSM (osm.pbf, o5m, etc format)
>>
>> https://www.mkgmap.org.uk > Documentation is a starting point for help.
>>
>> Ticker
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2024-12-06 at 10:47 -0800, scott taggart wrote:
>>>    As I posted here on 2024.12.01, I was having issues with POIs not 
>>> displaying
>>> labels for some garmin devices (specifically the XT2 and Tread) when
>>> generating /img files using mp file input to mkgmap.  I did some 
>>> exploration
>>> and discovered this (maybe well known but not by me):
>>>     * Each device model displays POIs differently (i.e., type 0x100 
>>> does not
>>> show the same thing). There seems to be no consistency across models 
>>> (Felix
>>> echoed this in a follow-up post).
>>>   * Each model displays labels for each POI type differently (some 
>>> show no
>>> label, others show small vs big text).  There seems to be no 
>>> consistency
>>> across models.
>>>   * I attempted to use the custom "[_point]" feature of the mp files 
>>> and mkgmap
>>> but the custom point bitmaps only work for some garmins.  Even then, 
>>> it didn't
>>> help with my missing [poi] labels.
>>>   * Prior to the labels not working on the XT2 and Tread units, I 
>>> always used
>>> the 0x1400 POI code type for my labels.  With a lot of cross-model
>>> experimentation I discovered a single POI code (0x1E00) will display 
>>> large
>>> text on all garmin models I was able to test with (Montana 6XX and 
>>> 7XX, XT,
>>> XT2, Tread).  I have no idea if this POI code will work with all 
>>> garmins that
>>> support custom maps.
>>>
>>>   Questions:
>>>    * Are these issues with each model behaving differently with 
>>> respect to POI
>>> types well-known?  If so, how are they gotten around by (OSM) map 
>>> builders?
>>> How can a single map be built that has POIs and labels that are 
>>> consistent
>>> across more than one device.  What am I missing?
>>>   * How does OSM handle this?  I presume that an OSM map generated 
>>> for an area
>>> works on all garmin devices?  I will admit that I don't know what 
>>> the OSM map
>>> limitations are across garmin models.  Does the JOSN model allow the 
>>> devices
>>> POI maps to be loaded on a per-map basis?  If I were to switch to 
>>> JOSN model
>>> for mkgmap input, could I get around all the device limitations I am 
>>> running
>>> into with the mp file format?  Can someone recommend a good tutorial on
>>> getting up to speed on generating JOSN for simple map input to mkgmap?
>>>   * OSM uses the JOSM model to feed mkgmap.  Does that model allow 
>>> for more
>>> flexibility and control than the "mp" input file model?  I presume 
>>> the MP file
>>> format is obsolete.
>>>   * Is there any better documentation for the MPO format than the 
>>> CGPSMAPPER
>>> pdf file floating around on the internet?
>>>   * Can anyone recommend either a different website or people whom I 
>>> may
>>> contact for further help with any of this?
>>>
>>>   Any and all help is appreciated.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>>> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
>>> https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
>> https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20241207/e6ad29e6/attachment-0001.html>