Hi Marko, found a few special cases: 1) the new dead-end-check is done before merging roads, so sometimes the reported way ids in the old RouteNode check refer to merged roads. When you want to compare results you should use --x-no-mergeroads so that you see the correct way ids. 2) The new check did not ignore points that lie on the boundary, only those that were outside of the tile boundary 3) The new check did not recognize P-shaped oneways as self-connecting. 4) The new check used a different (wrong) interpretation of the meaning of the LEVEL parameter in --report-dead-ends=LEVEL option. Attached is a new version of the patch. One possible problem case in the new check: If a oneway X is connected to a way Y that has just one (or more) identical points, the dead-end-check for X will say that the way is not a dead end, but later the way Y will be deleted with a corresponding warning and the old dead-end-check reports the dead-end for way X. I think this is okay as long as you see the warning for way Y. Ciao, Gerd
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 11:59:27 -0800 From: gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Diagnostic warnings for dead-end oneway highway=service
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. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev