Hi Some TYP file answers embedded. Regards Ticker On Fri, 2020-10-09 at 11:37 +0200, 7700 wrote:
Hi. Still on my learning path, and thanks for good documents, which have helped a lot.
2. When working with TYP files, i have read: If a polygon type is not listed in this section, then it will not be displayed at all.
Is this valid? If it is, then it means i really have to add every single item which may be generated and which is on the map, otherwise i risk loosing information without even knowing, say if i want to change very small portions from how the device displays something.
If you have a TYP file, I think it is correct that any polygons not in the [_draworder] section won't show. If you don't have a [_polygon] entry, you'll get the default representation for your device. Information on the default [_draworder] assumed by some devices is documented here and there on the web and there are comments about it in mkgmap-rXXXX/examples/typ-files/sameOrder.txt
I have found that there some information sets that cover a lot of types that garmin devices can show, but is it possible to extract a list from mkgmap, for example extracting the default set?
There have been postings in this group about all the types generated from the default style. You have to examine examples/styles/default/{points,lines,polygons} for the current, definitive, list
Is the example mapnik.txt file complete or just an example?
I think it has an entry for everything in the current default style.
If i didn't make errors, it seems there is a difference between generating gmapsupp with no TYP and this example TYP.
Yes - a big difference. mapnik.txt is attempting to reproduce a particular look. I find that it doesn't look good on small devices and I much prefer a very basic TYP file that doesn't change anything where most devices give a reasonable representation by default.
3. From which type number can i define my own type to avoid collission with existing types?
For lines, you need to beware of routable/non-routable and there are not many free entries in the non-extended section.
I am thinking of adding handling for aerialways.
Look at the thread "default style lines enhancements" from july: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/default-style-lines-enhancements-td59712 80.html It has something on this.
4. Related to the polygon amenity=parking and displaying of a picture. on maps such as from garmin.openstreetmap.nl, the polygon for amenity=parking displays the same parking symbol (garmin default, round with red P and black border) as for a point amenity=parking. I tried generating the individual tiles with the style present from mkgmap using --style-file=path/styles/, in which i see a mapping in the polygons file: amenity=parking | parking=surface [0x05 resolution 22]
I think you are just seeking the [_point] parking icon 0x2f0b. Depending on the OSM tagging, there might be a polygon with type 0x05 or 0x06.
But even with this, the parking polygons do not show any picture/symbol. What else is needed?
to define a polygon icon or solid colour that will be repeated over the parking area. mapnik.txt just defines a solid colour
Kind regards Karl
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev