Hi Mike, thanks for the patch, committed with r4462. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Mike Baggaley <mike@tvage.co.uk> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 4. März 2020 15:45 An: 'Development list for mkgmap' Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] dead end check patch v3 Hi Gerd, please find attached an updated patch that resolves the issue of tags specified possibly not being picked up by the style file reader. Cheers, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Mike Baggaley [mailto:mike@tvage.co.uk] Sent: 01 March 2020 17:03 To: 'Development list for mkgmap' <mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> Subject: RE: [mkgmap-dev] dead end check patch v2 Hi Gerd, Adding # disable dead-end-check for ways with end nodes having special tags (amenity=parking_entrance | railway=car_shuttle | railway=rolling_highway) {add fixme=true} does cause those to be omitted from the report. However, it also omits those that already have fixme tags, which I do not want removed. I could add fixme=* {delete fixme} ahead of the above, but then I would not get the values of any fixme tags included in my reports. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Gerd Petermann [mailto:gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com] Sent: 01 March 2020 16:49 To: Mike Baggaley <mike@tvage.co.uk>; 'Development list for mkgmap' <mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> Subject: AW: [mkgmap-dev] dead end check patch v2 Hi Mike, I don't understand why you don't add a rule to the points file containing something like # disable dead-end-check for ways with end nodes having special tags (amenity=parking_entrance | railway=car_shuttle | railway=rolling_highway) {add fixme=true} You did not yet say why this doesn't work for you. I would also agree to add this in the default style. I'd also agree to change the java code to handle the tag mkgmap:dead-end-check=no in addition to the fixme tags so that we could write (amenity=parking_entrance | railway=car_shuttle | railway=rolling_highway) {add mkgmap:dead-end-check=no} BTW: I was about to commit your patch v2 with a few changes, but it suffers from the same problem mentioned before: If the style doesn't use the tag railway anywhere you might not find railway=car_shuttle though this is very unlikely. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: Mike Baggaley <mike@tvage.co.uk> Gesendet: Sonntag, 1. März 2020 17:30 An: 'Gerd Petermann'; 'Development list for mkgmap' Betreff: RE: [mkgmap-dev] dead end check patch v2 Hi Gerd, there are several issues. Firstly, omitting ways from the dead end check because they have fixme tags is not something I want to do. Whilst this may be one way of reducing the number of reported warnings, and some users may want to do this, I do not. As it is undocumented behaviour, other users will probably not expect it to do this either. For my report, I only want to omit ways that are marked with valid reasons for a dead end (I am currently using amenity=parking_entrance, railway=car_shuttle and railway=rolling_highway, but there may be other tags I have not come across yet). I do not want to delete existing fixme tags because I want to see the value of any relevant fixme tag in the report. The current method of using fixme to control whether or not a way with certain tags on an end node is omitted from dead end checks is obscure and requires prospective users to have to ask whether it can be done and if so how. I have offered two simple solutions with appropriate documentation that will reduce the likelihood of such questions having to be asked. The first, using a style file is more flexible as it allows the power of the style to use combinations of values (e.g. amenity=parking_entrance & highway=service {set mkgmap:dead-end-check=no}). This method does require anyone currently using dead end checks to review their style file to determine which tags they want to be omitted from the check (if they are not using the supplied default style). The second option can only use the existence of a tag on its own to omit a way (e.g. --dead-ends=amenity=parking_entrance), but does not require users to make any changes if they want to continue to omit the same ways as they do currently. I do not understand why you are so resistant to making a change that improves the way mkgmap works, has no effect on the actual map and whose only impact for existing users is a possible slight change in the handling of reporting of dead ends. In the patches, I also corrected a typo in one other message and fixed a double space in another. These changes can equally be said to be not backwards compatible, but I don't believe anyone would say that this should prevent them from being done. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Gerd Petermann [mailto:gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com] Sent: 27 February 2020 11:04 To: 'Development list for mkgmap' <mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] dead end check patch v2 Hi Mike, I fear I don't understand the problem yet. It seems you don't like the idea that a tag like fixme=* set in the points rules changes the behaviour of the dead-end-check? Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Mike Baggaley <mike@tvage.co.uk> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Februar 2020 00:17 An: 'Development list for mkgmap' Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] dead end check patch v2 Hi Gerd, Please find attached the alternate patch for improving the dead end check, which is fully backwards compatible. This adds a new command line option -- dead-ends which lists the tags and optional values that are to be considered to be valid dead ends when found on the node at the end of a way. The default is --dead-ends=fixme,FIXME. Regards, Mike