Hi Gerd This hasn't changed. For each input ovm_ img it gets an Area from FileInfo.getBounds() then makes a 0x4a polygon from this, setting it's name to the tile "Descriptions \n Mapname". I've not found anything in recent versions that do anything different, including suppressing the above if it finds an existing 0x4a in the input. Ticker On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 15:45 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
oops, I wanted to remove the foreach loop. Anyway, my understanding is that the new code doesn't allow non-rectangular 0x4a shapes in the overview map while the old code did, at least when a *.mp file contains a non-rectangular 0x4a polygon. So, if the ovm_* file contains a 0x4a polygon we should use that. I just looked at the overview map for the Adria demo map and it has non-rectangular 0x4a polygons (close to the country boundaries )
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 21. Januar 2021 16:28 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Tiles pruned in DEM map
Hi Gerd
Each 0x4a polygon generated by the OverviewBuilder corresponds to a detail tile and I avoided changing anything relating to this except stopping them getting chopped up into SubDivisions by the --order-by logic (the initial reason for this thread) and outputting them before the other polygons in the detail tile area.
If the detail tiles are transparent (implemented as none of the input tiles having a 0x4b polygon), OverviewBuilder adds one. It is generated as a rectangle covering all the detail tiles rather than the shape of all the tiles. I've not changed this apart from outputting it first.
A shape that matches all the detail tiles is generated for use by the DEM overview and could, maybe, be used for the 0x4b. I don't think this is worth doing as part of this change.
I haven't made any changes to existing polygons that are input into OverviewBuilder (from whatever source); all, including 0x4a and 0x4b are passed on. It is unlikely that a user defined 0x4a polygon would be correctly set up, and, as seen by Carlos in his Australia map, getting it wrong has very strange effects as you zoom in and out of the overview.
I've attached a slightly updated patch - it looks like there was a for loop that should have been deleted when replaced by a forEach in OverviewBuilder::addMapCoverageArea
Ticker
On Thu, 2021-01-21 at 06:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
sorry for the delay, I started a very time consuming mapping in my area to unglue landuse areas from highways....
I looked at overview-v3.patch in more detail. I don't understand the changes regarding 0x4a polygons. I am not sure but I think it is a step in the wrong direction. I think one goal is to allow arbitrary polygons with 0x4 with OSM input (similar to the --dem-polygon) as we already do with polish (*.mp) format. So, you should not assume that the 0x4a polygon is a rectangle. I might be confusing this with 0x4b though. Besides that I changed a few things to improve readability.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 11:01 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Tiles pruned in DEM map
Hi Gerd
My understanding of the overview map was that it was for BaseCamp and MapSource, and it is used instead of the detail tiles as you zoom out. I had also assumed that it shares the same TYP as the detail tiles. For --order-by, this TYP will have equal [_drawOrder]. So the overview map, to display correctly, must also output polygons in the display order.
Ticker
On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 09:46 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
I fear I don't get it. If --order-by option is only improving the map on the device I see no need to use it for a map that is not used on the device, esp. not when it has negative effects.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 13. Januar 2021 10:41 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Tiles pruned in DEM map
Hi Gerd
I don't think this is the point of the patch.
--order-by is known to increase the size of the main map. This is accepted by users who consider the benefit worthwhile. The overview map, needing to operate in the same environment, has to keep to the same principals and this can lead to a size increase and the effect you mention of a label being off-center, because the named area has been split and the display software labels one part and suppress the label on the other.
A good example depends on finding overlayed polygons that either:
a/ conflict with a given TYP [_drawOrder] - for example, using mapnik.txt, you won't see any land features within Amenity/0x23, Parking/0x05, Industrial/0x0c
b/ have equal [_drawOrder], ie most landuse areas etc, where what will be displayed depends mostly on the internal logic of mkgmap, and, slightly by OSM extract ordering and the original object complexity.
Finding these examples would be tedious. I originally noticed these types of problems because the eTrex HCx starts displaying as soon as possible, and I'd see interesting features disappear from the display as it worked through everything that should be on the screen.
Ticker
On Wed, 2021-01-13 at 08:21 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
I've hoped for a good example that shows how --order-by... really improves the overview map. I gave an example where the only visible difference is a label that is slightly off (so the patch worsens the map).
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 11. Januar 2021 12:39 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Tiles pruned in DEM map
Hi Gerd
Here is an updated patch with the naming changes.
Ticker
On Wed, 2021-01-06 at 09:35 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
OK regarding the naming. I think what I tried to point out is that the overview map probably never suffers the problem that should be solved with the order -by stuff, but on the other hand we really want to keep that map as small as possible to allow continent or maybe even planet wide overview maps. So, I really prefer to enable the shape merging for the overview map. A possible work around might be to merge the shapes before MapSplitter is executed. The number of points is rather small, so performance shouldn't be a problem as it is with real OSM data. We might even use java.awt.area for that. Another question is if the --order-by could/should be disabled for the ovm_ maps.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Januar 2021 10:19 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Tiles pruned in DEM map
Hi Gerd
Sorry about overview-dem-dists.
I'd prefer the Map variable to be called IsOverviewComponent to make clear the distinction between the 2 types of overview and to be consistent with the names used in MapBuilder. I can do a patch to this effect.
--order-by is expected to increase the map size a bit; extra polygon splitting (in the ovm_ and carried into the composite) is performed so that all polygons at any given point are in the same subdivision and some merges (in both the ovm_ and the composite) are inhibited.
An overview map is unlikely to have multiple overlayed polygons so probably there won't be any cases where a fixed _drawOrder couldn't be defined correctly, but it exists with the detail tiles that need a TYP where all _drawOrders are equal.
Ticker
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 15:35 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
there is a typo in the patch, overview-dem-dists instead of overview -dem-dist. My rather small overview map got 20MB instead of 181K ;) I also didn't like the idea that the overview map is recognized by the name. That can lead to strange effects with test maps, so I added a parameter.
With the corrections the size increases by only by 5K, but I have no idea how these 5K improve the map. I see one small difference where a label of a lake (1) is placed a bit of the center. The "patched" map contains two polygons for this lake, I assume the Garmin software avoids to render its name twice but uses a different algo to calculate the position. These are the results for my own style, a variant of Minkos OpenFietsMap Light style. Will try again with default style and type file sameOrder.txt.
Gerd (1) https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3582977#map=14/53.58 15 /1 1. 19 91
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. Januar 2021 10:58 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Tiles pruned in DEM map
Hi Gerd
shapeMergeFilter.merge() sorts the shapes according to typ, skipSize, fullArea and name. For --order-by to work for the overview, this must not happen; the order in the ovm_ files must be used. This is the same idea as when the more than 1 detail tiles are displayed on a device.
The size of osmmap.img for my test area, with the patch, is: 9216 --no-order-by-decreasing-area throughout 10752 --order-by-decreasing-area throughout 9219 --order-by-decreasing-area at start, --no-order-by-decreasing-area for the combiners So, there is a slight increase, as expected, it really isn't of any significance.
--order-by-decreasing-area needs to be applied to both phases for it to work correctly.
If applied to the tile phase only, the overview map will render polygons in order of the results of the the shapeMergeFilter.
If applied to the overview phase only, probably similar; the order of the shapeMergeFilter governed ordering in the ovm_ .img
Ticker
On Mon, 2021-01-04 at 18:52 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Hi Ticker, > > thanks for the patch. I'll have a closer look during the > next > days. > I > don't yet understand why shapes aren't always merged. > What is the impact on the size of the overview map? What > happens > for > those users who create the overview map in an extra step > that > doesn't > have the --order-by-decreasing-area option? What happens > when > it's > the other way around, no --order-by-decreasing-area > option > for > the > tiles but --order-by-decreasing-area for the overview > map? > > Gerd
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev