Hi Henning,
some more remarks:
A factor of 2 is more or less the best value you can expect,
and it is likely that the factor is bigger.
Reason: splitter tries to create no tiles with
a very small number of nodes, it will typically produce a few tiles
with nearly 100% of the max-nodes value and other other with
less than 50%. The log shows the values:
...
Area 63240082 covers (48.8671875,8.701171875) to (49.21875,9.0966796875) and contains 837131 nodes (52 %)
Area 63240083 covers (48.8671875,9.0966796875) to (49.04296875,9.4482421875) and contains 607941 nodes (37 %)
Area 63240084 covers (49.04296875,9.0966796875) to (49.21875,9.4482421875) and contains 1035670 nodes (64 %)
Area 63240085 covers (49.21875,8.4375) to (49.833984375,8.701171875) and contains 1541414 nodes (96 %)
...
As long as we create rectangular tiles you should not expect much better results.
Gerd
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 21:54:05 +0200
> From: osm@aighes.de
> To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] mkgmap ToDo list
>
> Hi Gerd,
>
> I would like to have img-tiles which have globally nearly the same
> filesize, so that they use the space of devices like eTrex 10.
>
> With my actual map I use globally the same value for max-nodes. But the
> size of the img-tiles differ more then factor 2. Eg. a tile in Germany
> is between 2 and 5 mb where a tile in China is about 10 mb. If I remove
> details, this difference will increase, because in Germany more objects
> will be removed from the img-tile then in China.
>
> Henning
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev