Hi Felix, reg 1: The polygon is used to filter the input, splitter cannot write non-rectangulare tiles. The logic with the 40 or less edges is very special. The idea was to take a split file for a continent or planet and group tiles. reg. 2: (poly with hole) See e.g. http://download.geofabrik.de/africa/south-africa.poly reg. 3: Splitter tries several times to split, maybe you were confused by partial results? reg. 4: If I remember correctly it was reported that some devices cannot handle a gmapsupp with > 2048 tiles, that's why some map providers try to create large tiles. reg. 5: See above. Reg. size: I assume the global index requires much more space, also the labels which are repeated in each tile. reg. 6: --search-limit : It may save some time to use a higher limit when you know that the default will not find a solution --num-tiles: This is nomally used to divide a huge file (e.g. a continent) into a few (2 .. 6) tiles so that these files can be used again as input for splitter. Hope this helps... Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Felix Herwegh <mlmmduk@herwegh.de> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. April 2024 15:18 An: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Betreff: [mkgmap-dev] split using --polgon-file Hi, recently I started playing with splitting using polygon files, primarily based on the documentation in https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/doc/splitter.html. Got it to work, even with multiple areas in one .poly file (testing only, no application). The idea is to better cut out neighboring countries' and sea area for countries poorly aligned to lat/lon (NL, BE, IT...). Digging deeper though, severeal questions arose, that I couldn't answer, neither by the doc mentioned above nor by the (seemingly somewhat more topical but brief) --help output of splitter, not even by searching this lists archives. 1. Although the doc for --polygon-files says: "If the polygon area(s) describe(s) a rectilinear area with no more than 40 vertices, splitter will try to create output files that fit exactly into the area, otherwise it will approximate the polygon area with rectangles." So far I have not been able to generate a single split, that exactly follows the polygon, even if quite simple (<<40 points). I always get tiles on or extending the polygone. I'm not shure, I understand that quoted sentence. Does it (for a single area) mean a polygone of <= 41 points, hence <=40 lines (if first and last point are identical)? Is this functionatlity still in place, or has it been deprecated? Neither am I shure, I understand the target. Should splitter generate non-rectangular tiles with an alignment according to a polygone at all, or only rectangular aligned to lat/lon? If the latter, "exactly follows" could only work for polygones having each line parallel lat or lon? 2. The .poly files should follow the Osmosis syntax, which also specifies: "The polygon section name may optionally be prefixed with "!" to subtract the polygon. The section(s) containing the larger area from which to subtract should be listed first. All the polygon sections are combined together to create the final filter area." I couldn't make that work. Tried "!" directly in front of the section-name, separated by blank and on an individual line. Splitter does not complain, but seems generate identical splits for all 3 tries and without that area specified at all. Does splitter respect this syntax at all? (testing only, no application) 3. From what I've read so far, one might want to aim for "solution is nice", sufficiently even distributed node counts over all tiles, right? Is that 80% tiles @ > 80% targeted nodes and <3% tiles below 33% targeted nodes? Why do I get nice solutions although (after having the search limit being increased in several steps) splitter comments "No good solution found, trying to find one accepting anything"? What would define a good split? 4. My initial approach was to increase tile count to better follow the polygone. I basically did that by decreasing --max-nodes and, when splitter ran into tiles having >100% targeted nodes, raising resolution to allow for those tiles (cities...) to be smaller. I eaven had the "feeling", that my Edge 1040 appreciated more smaller tiles by zooming and scrolling smoother. On the other hand from the doc and for example some discussion here between Gerd and Felix Hartmann regarding and around r609 release I've got the impression, that the typical target might be minimum tile count, as long as some (Garmin?) max. tilesize (?) is not reached. Why is that? 5. Increasing a significant portion of Germany maps tile count ~by factor 7 from ~280 tiles (@ max-nodes=1200000, resolution=13) to ~2000 tiles (@ max-nodes=150000, resolution=15) only took around an additional 8% in gmappsupp filesize, but another factor of 3 to ~6000 tiles (@ max-nodes=50000, resolution=??) made it "explode" to 300% of the original size. This map did still load (altough with some spinner delay) in QMapShack, but no longer on my Garmin device, not even got listed. Just out of curiosity: I can understand some increased overhead due to more tiles (as in the first step), but no progressive increase like this, since the OSM data basically stays identical. Is there some distinct border effect involved, like having to switch to some bigger data-type at some tile count or something similar? 6. Not being mentioned in the doc but (briefly) in the --help output at least 2 options seem to be accessible and might be involved: a) --search-limit, seems to be set and increased automatically if needed b) --num-tiles, seems to be unset/unused by default Any use to temper with a), p.e. start below default? What would be the difference (benefit?) of using b) over decreasing max-nodes to control tile count? Sorry for so many questions; thanks for any input ;-) //Felix Herwegh