what's the difference? The polygon size limit is not m² but garmin units. So it should be fine too, or not? Does it matter so much, that extreme North/South this is different (I don't even know if it is). length filter is great, but not so fast (dunno if that is only if you use it in conjuction with routes), and there was no option. The polygon-size filter already exists - so it would merely be specifying it further (without any speed reductions I would believe). Or because m² is easier to setup? I'm not sure - if there are any benefits. One would need to play around a bit with it anyhow, to find out sensible values. So be it Garmin units, or metric units, doesn't make a difference for me. On 10.07.2013 20:00, Henning Scholland wrote:
I would prefer a style-function like we have already for length of ways. Eg. called polygon-size and returns the size in m². I think this is not much more work, but it is a lot more flexible.
Henning
Am 10.07.2013 17:21, schrieb Felix Hartmann:
Well I recently noticed, that some super detail mappers, started to map landuse=grass or leisure=garden for supersmall areas. E.g. a 2x4m private garden, or a 1mx10m long strip between both sides of a road. Yuck....
I would prefer to keep my maps clean, and get rid of that garbage. Could there be a polygon-size-filter that works also for resolution=24, and that can be setup much more aggressive? Especially for gardens and grass, I don't need small private ones, but would like to keep big public gardens and grassfields.
So could there be an implementation like the following for the polygons file: {set mkgmap:polygon-size-limit=24:30 ; 23:20 ; 22:15 ..} which overrides the default setting?
g. called polygon-size That would be absolutely great for combating all the micromapping junk!
-- keep on biking and discovering new trails Felix openmtbmap.org & www.velomap.org