Hi WanMil, thanks for testing. Today I found one more rule in Garmin maps that we ignore when writing NOD data. I have no idea yet if that is important or how to implement the rule. Gerd
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 12:15:42 +0100 From: wmgcnfg@web.de To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] additional arcs patch
I have compared results from the branch and the trunk.
I have to revert my suspicion: distances are equal.
I see some differences in routing so that it seems that larger roads are much more prefered in trunk than in branch. I'll have to check if that's good or bad :-)
WanMil
Ignore the Google result.
I am quite sure that there is a difference between the high-prec-coords branch and the trunk. I need to recompile the map with the trunk to confirm this.
WanMil
Please, forgive my 2 cents on this:
Depending on which projection each system is using, distance calculation may (and usually) differ by that much and maybe more. As far as I know, Google uses a Mercator-like projection on a spherical Earth model, which is not correct since Google coordinates refer to the WGS-84 ellipsoid. So you can expect differences, greater with higher latitudes.
So don't use Google as an accurate reference.
all the best,
Paulo
2014-02-20 17:23 GMT-03:00 WanMil <wmgcnfg@web.de <mailto:wmgcnfg@web.de>>:
Hi Gerd,
which difference do you expect regarding the indirect links? I want to get an idea what I should check on my device.
I have compiled a map using the patch and it seems that distances are slightly underestimated. One example: The distance between Hambug, An der Alster and Munich, Maximiliansplatz: MapSource: 776km Google Maps: 788km Both use the same route.
I didn't notice it before.
WanMil
Hi all,
attached is a patch for r3065 in the high-prec-coord branch.
It should improve long distance routing, as it adds additional arcs from minor roads to major roads (so called indirect links). Maybe the improvement is only seen on the device.
It would be great to hear some test results (good or bad), compared to trunk r3057 and compared to r3065.
A compiled binary is here: |http://files.mkgmap.org.uk/__download/179/mkgmap.jar <http://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/179/mkgmap.jar>
|Gerd
_________________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/__mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev>
_________________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk <mailto:mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/__mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev <http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev>
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev