Hi Ticker, I also don't know what 0x28 is, but you are probably right that the code is wrong. A change from LinkedHashMap to TreeMap for field index in MDR9 should fix this, right? Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Steve Ratcliffe <steve@parabola.me.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2019 23:12 An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] MDR 9 & 10 groups Hi Ticker
So, the first question is, does anyone know why 0x28 was given it's own group.
I've no idea why, but that is the way it is as far as I could determine.
The second problem is that the code that builds up the group start indexes into Mdr10 for Mdr9 assumes that the type ranges of the POI allocated for a group are in the same order as the groups, so, if you actually have a POI of type 0x28 then, because it has a lower type but a higher group than the 0x2a..30 range/groups, mdr9 is wrong.
I don't see where that happens but that would be wrong and mdr9 should be ordered by group. Cheers Steve _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev