Moin, I am not sure, I understand plans completely. Felix Hartmann schrieb:
I have a: highway=path; route=mtb; mtb:scale=0: mtb:scale:uphill=0
mtb:scale=0 & mtb:scale:uphill=0 & route=mtb { name 'mtbrt00 ${name}' | 'mtbrt00' } continue mtb:scale:uphill=0 & route=mtb { name 'mtbrt.0 ${name}' | 'mtbrt.0' } continue mtb:scale=0 & route=mtb { name 'mtbrt0. ${name}' | 'mtbrt0.' } continue
highway=path { name '${name} pth' | 'pth' } continue
would make all three rules being enacted which I do not want, I only want to have further rules still run again on the same objects (if not yet written out to 0x* without continue).
So in this case, you only want to have the first of your action rules beeing carried out, the next two action rules shall be left out, and than the conversion shall contiue with last rule and carrie on with all following rules? I do not see any usefull syntax right now, to enable such complex style-rules control. But I think you can reach your goal quite easily, when you introduce some auxilliary flags: mkgmap_mtbrt_name_fixed!=yes & mtb:scale=0 & mtb:scale:uphill=0 & route=mtb { name 'mtbrt00 ${name}' | 'mtbrt00' ; mkgmap_mtbrt_name_fixed=yes } continue mkgmap_mtbrt_name_fixed!=yes & mtb:scale:uphill=0 & route=mtb { name 'mtbrt.0 ${name}' | 'mtbrt.0' ; mkgmap_mtbrt_name_fixed=yes } continue mkgmap_mtbrt_name_fixed!=yes & mtb:scale=0 & route=mtb { name 'mtbrt0. ${name}' | 'mtbrt0.' ; mkgmap_mtbrt_name_fixed=yes } continue
*Actually* it would be great if we could define a type, say 0x999999 which drops items out from further processing because we don't want them to be displayed at all in our map. I.e. I don't want my maps to include waterway=* & tunnel=yes, but I want to display all tunnel=yes with type 0x*. To speed up the processing any object which is on type 0x99999 is dropped from further processing and not put into the map. This would avoid a lot of != use and could speed up mkgmap because you can quickly exclude objects from the database that the rules and following lines have to be run against.
I think the 0x999999 is quite a bad hack. But some kind of stop command might be really usefull, not only for performance gains but also for making the style files less complicated. But what about a style rule without the continue? Wouldn't this stop the processing. I haven't look at the latest work from Steve yet, but in your above eyample, you use the continue statement on rules with an action part only. If you insert a rule like: waterway=* & tunnel=yes {set ignored=yes} without any continue, shouldn't this stop the processing of the item? Gruss Torsten