Hi Marko, okay, thanks for the explanation. I'll look at the differences tomorrow. Gerd Marko Mäkelä wrote
On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 11:19:06AM -0800, GerdP wrote:
Hi Marko,
please check:
Marko Mäkelä wrote
* Different coordinates for the 13 old messages (as expected; this is thanks to the higher precision)
I don't yet see a reason for different coordinates. Did you really compare the output one program execution? Or did you use a different program for the "old" messages?
I did 2 comparisons with the output from 2 runs:
With mkgmap/trunk r2916 With mkgmap/branches/high-prec-coord r2930 and your patch
First, I compared the output of trunk to the output of branch, using the finland.osm.pbf from Geofabrik dated today, 02:16 UTC.
There were 2 differences:
(a) Variation of the coordinates in the 13 old-style messages (b) Addition of 10 new-style messages
This was to be expected.
What was not expected was the difference 13 vs. 10. To diagnose it, I performed another comparison within the output of the patched branch. Many of the "old" messages had direct counterparts in the "new" messages, but some "new" messages for "old" messages were missing, and some were extra (only "new" message for the way, no "old" one).
In my previous message, I listed the OSM way IDs for both cases. I fixed one error (for one extra "new" message) in the OSM database, but I left the others intact, so that we will have some errors in the next finland.osm.pbf to check against.
Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@.org
-- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Diagnostic-warnings-for-dead-end-oneway-highw... Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.