Hi Nick,

well, 0x11f00 is 256 * 0x11f, so it is not the same, but
if I get you right you want mkgmap to interpret all values >= 0x100 and x
as if they were written with a 00 at the end.
What is the upper bound (x) ?

See also
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/2013q2/017797.html

Gerd

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 08:04:31 -0800
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] invalid types in check-styles

Hi Gerd

0x11f is the same as 0x11f00 - both have been valid expressions in the past.

However, the style checker tells me that 11f is invalid.
This applies to I think all extended types , ie it tells me 10A (without the 00) is invalid.
It accepts 10A00 but not 10A
It accepts 11F00 but not 11F
I agree 10A00 is the more accurate way of defining an extended line but it might be confusing to flag them as invalid.

r

Nick

On 30/12/2013 15:49, GerdP [via GIS] wrote:

Hi,

yes, 0x11f00 is recognized as an extended type.
What bug do you mean?
Should mkgmap interpret 0x11f as 0x11f00
when used in the lines or polygons file?

Gerd

> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 02:07:24 -0800

> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [mkgmap-dev] invalid types in check-styles
>
> Hi
>
> Interesting 'bug' when using check-styles.
>
> It had me foxed as it actually by chance highlighted lines I didn't use in
> my TYP file.
>
> invalid type 0x11f for POLYLINE
>
> It transpires that when replacing 11f with 11f00 the type number is
> correctly identified as valid.
> I checked it with several lines, with and without the zero subtypes.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/invalid-types-in-check-styles-tp5791157.html
> Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/invalid-types-in-check-styles-tp5791157p5791203.html

To unsubscribe from invalid types in check-styles, click here.
NAML

View this message in context: Re: invalid types in check-styles
Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [hidden email] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev