route recalculation senstivity bug found
I found out the problem associated to route recalculation not working (well working but only far too late). We currently set the TRE header at 1,3,17 IF we change this over to 1,4,23 route recalculation kicks in at around 25-30m instead of 300-400 (as it happens with 1,3,17 we currently use) on my Vista HCx. I don't know how this is set because the value introduced with the patch about this seems to be organized differently. I changed this with gmaptool and now it works very well. Would be great if these values could be set directly by mkgmap.
Hi Felix,
I found out the problem associated to route recalculation not working (well working but only far too late). We currently set the TRE header at 1,3,17 IF we change this over to 1,4,23 route recalculation kicks in at around 25-30m instead of 300-400 (as it happens with 1,3,17 we currently use) on my Vista HCx.
I don't know how this is set because the value introduced with the patch about this seems to be organized differently. I changed this with gmaptool and now it works very well. Would be great if these values could be set directly by mkgmap.
With my vista hcx and using the current value of 0x110301, the route recalculates if I go off course by no more than about 25m. I believe other people are also getting similar results. Perhaps people could confirm that? Cheers, Mark
Let's hear them. I got many many complaints that my maps don't recalculate... How can I change 0x110301 so that it sets 1,4,23 instead of 1,3,17? Mark Burton wrote:
Hi Felix,
I found out the problem associated to route recalculation not working (well working but only far too late). We currently set the TRE header at 1,3,17 IF we change this over to 1,4,23 route recalculation kicks in at around 25-30m instead of 300-400 (as it happens with 1,3,17 we currently use) on my Vista HCx.
I don't know how this is set because the value introduced with the patch about this seems to be organized differently. I changed this with gmaptool and now it works very well. Would be great if these values could be set directly by mkgmap.
With my vista hcx and using the current value of 0x110301, the route recalculates if I go off course by no more than about 25m. I believe other people are also getting similar results. Perhaps people could confirm that?
Cheers,
Mark _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Felix,
Let's hear them. I got many many complaints that my maps don't recalculate...
Speak up chaps, how's the recalculating working out?
How can I change 0x110301 so that it sets 1,4,23 instead of 1,3,17?
Change line 170 of src/uk/me/parabola/imgfmt/app/trergn/TREHeader.java to output 0x170401 instead of 0x110301. Cheers, Mark
Mark Burton wrote:
Hi Felix,
Let's hear them. I got many many complaints that my maps don't recalculate...
Speak up chaps, how's the recalculating working out?
With the current mkgmap I get recalculation between 25 and 50m. Prior to the discussion "[mkgmap-dev] [PATCH] route recalculation sensitivity", and subsequent patch/commit, it was more like 250m. I'm using an Edge 605
How can I change 0x110301 so that it sets 1,4,23 instead of 1,3,17?
Change line 170 of src/uk/me/parabola/imgfmt/app/trergn/TREHeader.java to output 0x170401 instead of 0x110301.
I'm happy to try this but won't be able to report back for a few days Cheers Paul
Change line 170 of src/uk/me/parabola/imgfmt/app/trergn/TREHeader.java to output 0x170401 instead of 0x110301.
I'm happy to try this but won't be able to report back for a few days
So I finally got chance to try this out and after a brief test I would say that at best it's the same as current trunk and at worst slightly worse than current but there's really very little in it and my results are subjective not scientific. Hope that helps someone Cheers Paul
Mark Burton wrote:
With my vista hcx and using the current value of 0x110301, the route recalculates if I go off course by no more than about 25m. I believe other people are also getting similar results. Perhaps people could confirm that?
My eTrex Legend HCx with a map generated by mkgmap r1024 recalculates at about 25m. Maps made with older versions of mkgmap (I don't remember the exact version number I used) recalculated much later.
Strange that it's working for you. I'm allways on SVN latest wit hVista HCx, I even think that before the updates it worked better. Anyhow I now use the different value and am happy. Could it be that it's only not working when going slow, maybe it works at carspeeds? Ralf Kleineisel wrote:
Mark Burton wrote:
With my vista hcx and using the current value of 0x110301, the route recalculates if I go off course by no more than about 25m. I believe other people are also getting similar results. Perhaps people could confirm that?
My eTrex Legend HCx with a map generated by mkgmap r1024 recalculates at about 25m. Maps made with older versions of mkgmap (I don't remember the exact version number I used) recalculated much later. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Felix, BTW - thanks to those who have responded re performance of the current value.
Strange that it's working for you. I'm allways on SVN latest wit hVista HCx, I even think that before the updates it worked better. Anyhow I now use the different value and am happy. Could it be that it's only not working when going slow, maybe it works at carspeeds?
I'd love to say that I cycle at car speeds but that, sadly, isn't true. It works at my normal cycling speed of around 26kph. Cheers, Mark
O.k. so there must be another reason. Maybe its as well related to road_speed or road_class? (Garmin may think that the lower the road_speed the higher the chance that there are buildings that obstruct GPS reception, or the lower the accuracy of the maps, cause minor roads are not that well mapped as major roads??). The road_speed of my maps is only 0,1 and 2 -could that be the culprit? Mark Burton wrote:
Hi Felix,
BTW - thanks to those who have responded re performance of the current value.
Strange that it's working for you. I'm allways on SVN latest wit hVista HCx, I even think that before the updates it worked better. Anyhow I now use the different value and am happy. Could it be that it's only not working when going slow, maybe it works at carspeeds?
I'd love to say that I cycle at car speeds but that, sadly, isn't true. It works at my normal cycling speed of around 26kph.
Cheers,
Mark _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Felix,
O.k. so there must be another reason.
Maybe its as well related to road_speed or road_class? (Garmin may think that the lower the road_speed the higher the chance that there are buildings that obstruct GPS reception, or the lower the accuracy of the maps, cause minor roads are not that well mapped as major roads??).
The road_speed of my maps is only 0,1 and 2 -could that be the culprit?
For sure, there's lot's we don't know. For example, that 3 byte field. We don't really know what the various bits are used for. Someone a while back posted an analysis (and their theory) on what the values meant but nothing more has come from that yet. Cheers, Mark
Yeah getting that 3byte field to work would be splendid. There are so many lines that one can't differentiate without it. Especially as Maspource only displays half as many compared to the gps. Mark Burton wrote:
Felix,
O.k. so there must be another reason.
Maybe its as well related to road_speed or road_class? (Garmin may think that the lower the road_speed the higher the chance that there are buildings that obstruct GPS reception, or the lower the accuracy of the maps, cause minor roads are not that well mapped as major roads??).
The road_speed of my maps is only 0,1 and 2 -could that be the culprit?
For sure, there's lot's we don't know. For example, that 3 byte field. We don't really know what the various bits are used for. Someone a while back posted an analysis (and their theory) on what the values meant but nothing more has come from that yet.
Cheers,
Mark _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Felix Hartmann escribió:
Strange that it's working for you. I'm allways on SVN latest wit hVista HCx, I even think that before the updates it worked better. Some time ago (but after time recalculation was improved) I had the same problem. Finally I solved it building mkgmap from a fresh svn. Could you try this?
Regards Carlos
Felix Hartmann schrieb:
Strange that it's working for you. I'm allways on SVN latest wit hVista HCx, I even think that before the updates it worked better. Could it be that you use a modified style file? Some changed settings in the bit resolution for the layers? As far as I know, these values has to do something with the bit resolution for the map. Maybe the basemap on the unit has another resolution?
With my vista hcx and using the current value of 0x110301, the route recalculates if I go off course by no more than about 25m. I believe other people are also getting similar results. Perhaps people could confirm that?
Yes, I can confirm that. On my etrex Legend before the patch I had a recalculation distance of 250m. With the latest mkgmap I get much smaller, reasonable distances. (Not measured exactly, but around 15-25m) Regards, Johann
participants (6)
-
Carlos Dávila -
Felix Hartmann -
Johann Gail -
Mark Burton -
Paul -
Ralf Kleineisel