I'll not have time to test until Tuesday (would have time today, but my server is just rendering a map of Europe, so that will take some hours). I use --transparent, and later use gmaptool to make the map not transparent. (gmt.exe -w -n %FID%*.img) I'll test if there is any difference. As my maps do much more turns, it's a different game anyhow. Overall the patch v2 is very similar to not using it, so I decided to use it for now. Long distance routing for my maps is like 80km air distance, 120-140km real distance, 150 turns. I would consider any output to be broken, if routing crashes before 50-60 turns. v1 was just like that, 50-60 turns max for me. I never noticed difference to 0x4b or another background polygon. I currently use: ( natural=land | landuse=land ) [0x10101 resolution 21-14 continue] ( natural=land | landuse=land | natural=cape ) | ( place=island & name=* ) [0x10100 resolution 22] Must say I never noticed a difference in routing when moving away from 0x4b years ago... I use --transparent because it gives higher performance when scrolling on old GPS like Vista HCx (and avoids the flashing). On 22.02.2013 11:45, GerdP wrote:
Hi,
I did a few more tests to track down why --transparent breaks long distance routing. My result: It seems that long distance routing needs the type 0x4b polygons that are created if you don't specify --transparent. Reason for this assumption: When I change mkgmap to add a different type as background (e.g. 0x50 for forest), long distance routing is more or less surely broken. Up to now, --transparent changes two things: 1) it sets a bit in the TRE header file 2) it avoids to create the backgroud polygon(s) with type 0x4b
I am not sure if 2) is needed to get a transparent map. Attached is a small patch that changes mkgmap so that it always generates the background polygon.
@Felix: Could you please try this with the --transparent option ? Is the map transparent or not ? Is long distance routing working ?
If that doesn't work, another possible solution would be to disallow--transparent in combination with --route. I assume that would require to have the --transparent flag for all other layers?
Ciao, Gerd
addBackgroud.patch <http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/file/n5750309/addBackgroud.patch>
GerdP wrote
Hi Steve, Steve Ratcliffe wrote
@Steve: Do you still work on it? If you mean the difference with --transparent then I've pretty much given up on finding the reason. It doesn't make a lot of sense - why is it different than say removing all the forest polygons? I've not found anything that mkgmap is doing wrong. I also have no idea what is wrong. I think that the NOD data is equal, so maybe it is simply related to the size or distance of sub divisions. If that is right, I should be able to find a threshold value by adding or removing things.
Gerd
GerdP wrote
Hi Steve, Steve Ratcliffe wrote
@Steve: Do you still work on it? If you mean the difference with --transparent then I've pretty much given up on finding the reason. It doesn't make a lot of sense - why is it different than say removing all the forest polygons? I've not found anything that mkgmap is doing wrong. I also have no idea what is wrong. I think that the NOD data is equal, so maybe it is simply related to the size or distance of sub divisions. If that is right, I should be able to find a threshold value by adding or removing things.
Gerd
-- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/PATCH-v1-highwayCount-tp5748554p5750309.html Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
-- keep on biking and discovering new trails Felix openmtbmap.org & www.velomap.org