Hi all, I've noticed the following problem with boundary relations (type=boundary, boundary=administrative), e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/170953 is cut into pieces with the attached areas.list By default, splitter will not keep them complete, and it is likely that this relation appears in more than one tile. When you use --add-pois-to-areas mkgmap will generate a POI based on the existing data, and this POI will have the tag place=city (for the example), so for each tile we calculate different coordinates for the city POI. I guess this happens with other relations as well. You can solve this particular problem by telling splitter to keep all administrative boundaries complete, but that will produce a lot more data in each tile: --boundary-tags=administrative So, I see two possible solutions: 1) change splitter so that it keeps mp-relations complete when they have a tag like place. A new option could specify a list of those tags . 2) change mkgmap so that it doesn't generate a POI for mp-relations with incomplete outer ways. What do you think? Gerd
Hi Gerd,
When you use --add-pois-to-areas mkgmap will generate a POI based on the existing data, and this POI will have the tag place=city (for the example), so for each tile we calculate different coordinates for the city POI.
Not only cites but all polygons can get duplicate POIs. Probably cities are worst, because they are easily accessible with search function.
You can solve this particular problem by telling splitter to keep all administrative boundaries complete, but that will produce a lot more data in each tile: --boundary-tags=administrative
Looks like the easiest solution, so maybe we can allow for bigger tiles. I think you can save complete multipolygons too. -- Best regards, Andrzej
Hi Andrzej,
When you use --add-pois-to-areas mkgmap will generate a POI based on the existing data, and this POI will have the tag place=city (for the example), so for each tile we calculate different coordinates for the city POI.
Not only cites but all polygons can get duplicate POIs. Probably cities are worst, because they are easily accessible with search function.
yes, and they are typically so large that different POI are far from each other.
You can solve this particular problem by telling splitter to keep all administrative boundaries complete, but that will produce a lot more data in each tile: --boundary-tags=administrative
Looks like the easiest solution, so maybe we can allow for bigger tiles. I think you can save complete multipolygons too.
Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only exclude some boundary relations. I think this thread shows why: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/splitter-relations-to-be-checked-with-keep-co... So, question remains: Should we change something in one of the programs? Gerd
Hi Gerd,
Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only exclude some boundary relations.
I see. But maybe potential increase wouldn't be that big, if you add boundaries? Or maybe you can preserve only some levels of boundaries? Or you can use boundary data form --bounds option? Anyway, I prefer version 1 - keep complete relation, that could be useful for mkgmap. -- Best regards, Andrzej
Hi Andrzej, I tried using --boundary-tags=administrative for splitter, the amount of additional data depends on the size of the largest boundaries. Attached is a small patch that changes splitter so that it keeps administrative boundaries complete when the admin_level is between 5 and 11 (including). This doesn't add much data to the output files in comparison to --boundary-tags=administrative when splitting e.g. Brazil with --max-nodes=800000 and --output=o5m: a) r422 output size: ~ 359 M b) patched version : ~381 M c) unpatched r422 with --boundary-tags=administrative: 402 M I've also tested the effect on mkgmap. As expected, version a) produces some wrong / duplicate POI, but I don't see them for b) or c). The throughput is nearly identical, and the final img size is also almost equal. So, I think the patch is the best compromise. Gerd
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:56:43 +0200 From: popej@poczta.onet.pl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Hi Gerd,
Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only exclude some boundary relations.
I see. But maybe potential increase wouldn't be that big, if you add boundaries?
Or maybe you can preserve only some levels of boundaries?
Or you can use boundary data form --bounds option?
Anyway, I prefer version 1 - keep complete relation, that could be useful for mkgmap.
-- Best regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Could the admin_levels be made configurable in some way? There are considerable differences in the size of these areas between different countries. I am thinking particularly of the lower admin_level (5) which might be better set to 6 (or even 8) in the UK. Level 5 corresponds to "regions" which are basically only for statistics and some government stuff - not many people would know what region they are in (except they could probably guess because they are called things like "South East England"). Level 6 corresponds to Counties, and everyone uses them. //colin On 2015-05-21 17:00, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Andrzej,
I tried using --boundary-tags=administrative for splitter, the amount of additional data depends on the size of the largest boundaries.
Attached is a small patch that changes splitter so that it keeps administrative boundaries complete when the admin_level is between 5 and 11 (including).
This doesn't add much data to the output files in comparison to --boundary-tags=administrative when splitting e.g. Brazil with --max-nodes=800000 and --output=o5m: a) r422 output size: ~ 359 M b) patched version : ~381 M c) unpatched r422 with --boundary-tags=administrative: 402 M
I've also tested the effect on mkgmap. As expected, version a) produces some wrong / duplicate POI, but I don't see them for b) or c). The throughput is nearly identical, and the final img size is also almost equal.
So, I think the patch is the best compromise.
Gerd
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:56:43 +0200 From: popej@poczta.onet.pl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Hi Gerd,
Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only exclude some boundary relations.
I see. But maybe potential increase wouldn't be that big, if you add boundaries?
Or maybe you can preserve only some levels of boundaries?
Or you can use boundary data form --bounds option?
Anyway, I prefer version 1 - keep complete relation, that could be useful for mkgmap.
-- Best regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ 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 [1]
Links: ------ [1] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Colin, what difference do you expect when you are able to configure that value? I'd expect a few MB difference in the OSM file size and nearly no difference in mkgmap output, on the other hand it woud be another complicated option. Gerd Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:25:12 +0200 From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities Could the admin_levels be made configurable in some way? There are considerable differences in the size of these areas between different countries. I am thinking particularly of the lower admin_level (5) which might be better set to 6 (or even 8) in the UK. Level 5 corresponds to "regions" which are basically only for statistics and some government stuff - not many people would know what region they are in (except they could probably guess because they are called things like "South East England"). Level 6 corresponds to Counties, and everyone uses them. //colin On 2015-05-21 17:00, Gerd Petermann wrote: Hi Andrzej, I tried using --boundary-tags=administrative for splitter, the amount of additional data depends on the size of the largest boundaries. Attached is a small patch that changes splitter so that it keeps administrative boundaries complete when the admin_level is between 5 and 11 (including). This doesn't add much data to the output files in comparison to --boundary-tags=administrative when splitting e.g. Brazil with --max-nodes=800000 and --output=o5m: a) r422 output size: ~ 359 M b) patched version : ~381 M c) unpatched r422 with --boundary-tags=administrative: 402 M I've also tested the effect on mkgmap. As expected, version a) produces some wrong / duplicate POI, but I don't see them for b) or c). The throughput is nearly identical, and the final img size is also almost equal. So, I think the patch is the best compromise. Gerd
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:56:43 +0200 From: popej@poczta.onet.pl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Hi Gerd,
Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only exclude some boundary relations.
I see. But maybe potential increase wouldn't be that big, if you add boundaries?
Or maybe you can preserve only some levels of boundaries?
Or you can use boundary data form --bounds option?
Anyway, I prefer version 1 - keep complete relation, that could be useful for mkgmap.
-- Best regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ 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
Well, I am thinking that the whole of the boundary of Scotland for example (level 5 is the region, level 4 is the nation - they are coterminous) will add an enormous overhead to all the tiles in Scotland. Maybe it isn't worth it, especially if you say it is complex to implement. As an aside, what happens to tiles which are entirely enclosed by a boundary, without there being a node within the tile? //colin On 2015-05-21 18:31, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Colin,
what difference do you expect when you are able to configure that value? I'd expect a few MB difference in the OSM file size and nearly no difference in mkgmap output, on the other hand it woud be another complicated option.
Gerd
------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:25:12 +0200 From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Could the admin_levels be made configurable in some way? There are considerable differences in the size of these areas between different countries. I am thinking particularly of the lower admin_level (5) which might be better set to 6 (or even 8) in the UK. Level 5 corresponds to "regions" which are basically only for statistics and some government stuff - not many people would know what region they are in (except they could probably guess because they are called things like "South East England"). Level 6 corresponds to Counties, and everyone uses them. //colin
On 2015-05-21 17:00, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Andrzej,
I tried using --boundary-tags=administrative for splitter, the amount of additional data depends on the size of the largest boundaries.
Attached is a small patch that changes splitter so that it keeps administrative boundaries complete when the admin_level is between 5 and 11 (including).
This doesn't add much data to the output files in comparison to --boundary-tags=administrative when splitting e.g. Brazil with --max-nodes=800000 and --output=o5m: a) r422 output size: ~ 359 M b) patched version : ~381 M c) unpatched r422 with --boundary-tags=administrative: 402 M
I've also tested the effect on mkgmap. As expected, version a) produces some wrong / duplicate POI, but I don't see them for b) or c). The throughput is nearly identical, and the final img size is also almost equal.
So, I think the patch is the best compromise.
Gerd
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:56:43 +0200 From: popej@poczta.onet.pl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Hi Gerd,
Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only exclude some boundary relations.
I see. But maybe potential increase wouldn't be that big, if you add boundaries?
Or maybe you can preserve only some levels of boundaries?
Or you can use boundary data form --bounds option?
Anyway, I prefer version 1 - keep complete relation, that could be useful for mkgmap.
-- Best regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ 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 [1]
_______________________________________________ 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 [1]
Links: ------ [1] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Colin, It would not be complicated to implement, but I fear the documentation. Today I've tested with Brazil, once with levels 4-11, once with 5-11. Size difference was only 10MB (sum for all 27 tiles), so I don't expect a big change in the UK when you would use e.g. 6-11. I'll think about a good option name and docu for it, if I find one I'll add it. Suggestions are wellcome. Gerd Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:44:32 +0200 From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities Well, I am thinking that the whole of the boundary of Scotland for example (level 5 is the region, level 4 is the nation - they are coterminous) will add an enormous overhead to all the tiles in Scotland. Maybe it isn't worth it, especially if you say it is complex to implement. As an aside, what happens to tiles which are entirely enclosed by a boundary, without there being a node within the tile? //colin On 2015-05-21 18:31, Gerd Petermann wrote: Hi Colin, what difference do you expect when you are able to configure that value? I'd expect a few MB difference in the OSM file size and nearly no difference in mkgmap output, on the other hand it woud be another complicated option. Gerd Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:25:12 +0200 From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities Could the admin_levels be made configurable in some way? There are considerable differences in the size of these areas between different countries. I am thinking particularly of the lower admin_level (5) which might be better set to 6 (or even 8) in the UK. Level 5 corresponds to "regions" which are basically only for statistics and some government stuff - not many people would know what region they are in (except they could probably guess because they are called things like "South East England"). Level 6 corresponds to Counties, and everyone uses them. //colin On 2015-05-21 17:00, Gerd Petermann wrote: Hi Andrzej, I tried using --boundary-tags=administrative for splitter, the amount of additional data depends on the size of the largest boundaries. Attached is a small patch that changes splitter so that it keeps administrative boundaries complete when the admin_level is between 5 and 11 (including). This doesn't add much data to the output files in comparison to --boundary-tags=administrative when splitting e.g. Brazil with --max-nodes=800000 and --output=o5m: a) r422 output size: ~ 359 M b) patched version : ~381 M c) unpatched r422 with --boundary-tags=administrative: 402 M I've also tested the effect on mkgmap. As expected, version a) produces some wrong / duplicate POI, but I don't see them for b) or c). The throughput is nearly identical, and the final img size is also almost equal. So, I think the patch is the best compromise. Gerd
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:56:43 +0200 From: popej@poczta.onet.pl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Hi Gerd,
Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only exclude some boundary relations.
I see. But maybe potential increase wouldn't be that big, if you add boundaries?
Or maybe you can preserve only some levels of boundaries?
Or you can use boundary data form --bounds option?
Anyway, I prefer version 1 - keep complete relation, that could be useful for mkgmap.
-- Best regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Colin, it turned out that your concerns were okay, the differences in the UK are much higher, so I've implemented a new option wanted-admin-level. See also post for splitter 423. Gerd From: gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:56:46 +0200 Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities Hi Colin, It would not be complicated to implement, but I fear the documentation. Today I've tested with Brazil, once with levels 4-11, once with 5-11. Size difference was only 10MB (sum for all 27 tiles), so I don't expect a big change in the UK when you would use e.g. 6-11. I'll think about a good option name and docu for it, if I find one I'll add it. Suggestions are wellcome. Gerd Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:44:32 +0200 From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities Well, I am thinking that the whole of the boundary of Scotland for example (level 5 is the region, level 4 is the nation - they are coterminous) will add an enormous overhead to all the tiles in Scotland. Maybe it isn't worth it, especially if you say it is complex to implement. As an aside, what happens to tiles which are entirely enclosed by a boundary, without there being a node within the tile? //colin On 2015-05-21 18:31, Gerd Petermann wrote: Hi Colin, what difference do you expect when you are able to configure that value? I'd expect a few MB difference in the OSM file size and nearly no difference in mkgmap output, on the other hand it woud be another complicated option. Gerd Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:25:12 +0200 From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities Could the admin_levels be made configurable in some way? There are considerable differences in the size of these areas between different countries. I am thinking particularly of the lower admin_level (5) which might be better set to 6 (or even 8) in the UK. Level 5 corresponds to "regions" which are basically only for statistics and some government stuff - not many people would know what region they are in (except they could probably guess because they are called things like "South East England"). Level 6 corresponds to Counties, and everyone uses them. //colin On 2015-05-21 17:00, Gerd Petermann wrote: Hi Andrzej, I tried using --boundary-tags=administrative for splitter, the amount of additional data depends on the size of the largest boundaries. Attached is a small patch that changes splitter so that it keeps administrative boundaries complete when the admin_level is between 5 and 11 (including). This doesn't add much data to the output files in comparison to --boundary-tags=administrative when splitting e.g. Brazil with --max-nodes=800000 and --output=o5m: a) r422 output size: ~ 359 M b) patched version : ~381 M c) unpatched r422 with --boundary-tags=administrative: 402 M I've also tested the effect on mkgmap. As expected, version a) produces some wrong / duplicate POI, but I don't see them for b) or c). The throughput is nearly identical, and the final img size is also almost equal. So, I think the patch is the best compromise. Gerd
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:56:43 +0200 From: popej@poczta.onet.pl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Hi Gerd,
Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only exclude some boundary relations.
I see. But maybe potential increase wouldn't be that big, if you add boundaries?
Or maybe you can preserve only some levels of boundaries?
Or you can use boundary data form --bounds option?
Anyway, I prefer version 1 - keep complete relation, that could be useful for mkgmap.
-- Best regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ 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
Thanks Gerd On 2015-05-22 09:34, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Colin,
it turned out that your concerns were okay, the differences in the UK are much higher, so I've implemented a new option wanted-admin-level.
See also post for splitter 423.
Gerd
------------------------- From: gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:56:46 +0200 Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Hi Colin,
It would not be complicated to implement, but I fear the documentation. Today I've tested with Brazil, once with levels 4-11, once with 5-11. Size difference was only 10MB (sum for all 27 tiles), so I don't expect a big change in the UK when you would use e.g. 6-11.
I'll think about a good option name and docu for it, if I find one I'll add it. Suggestions are wellcome.
Gerd
------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:44:32 +0200 From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Well, I am thinking that the whole of the boundary of Scotland for example (level 5 is the region, level 4 is the nation - they are coterminous) will add an enormous overhead to all the tiles in Scotland. Maybe it isn't worth it, especially if you say it is complex to implement. As an aside, what happens to tiles which are entirely enclosed by a boundary, without there being a node within the tile? //colin
On 2015-05-21 18:31, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Colin,
what difference do you expect when you are able to configure that value? I'd expect a few MB difference in the OSM file size and nearly no difference in mkgmap output, on the other hand it woud be another complicated option.
Gerd
------------------------- Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 18:25:12 +0200 From: colin.smale@xs4all.nl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Could the admin_levels be made configurable in some way? There are considerable differences in the size of these areas between different countries. I am thinking particularly of the lower admin_level (5) which might be better set to 6 (or even 8) in the UK. Level 5 corresponds to "regions" which are basically only for statistics and some government stuff - not many people would know what region they are in (except they could probably guess because they are called things like "South East England"). Level 6 corresponds to Counties, and everyone uses them. //colin
On 2015-05-21 17:00, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Andrzej,
I tried using --boundary-tags=administrative for splitter, the amount of additional data depends on the size of the largest boundaries.
Attached is a small patch that changes splitter so that it keeps administrative boundaries complete when the admin_level is between 5 and 11 (including).
This doesn't add much data to the output files in comparison to --boundary-tags=administrative when splitting e.g. Brazil with --max-nodes=800000 and --output=o5m: a) r422 output size: ~ 359 M b) patched version : ~381 M c) unpatched r422 with --boundary-tags=administrative: 402 M
I've also tested the effect on mkgmap. As expected, version a) produces some wrong / duplicate POI, but I don't see them for b) or c). The throughput is nearly identical, and the final img size is also almost equal.
So, I think the patch is the best compromise.
Gerd
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:56:43 +0200 From: popej@poczta.onet.pl To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Duplicate cities
Hi Gerd,
Hmm, splitter keeps most mp-relations complete, we only exclude some boundary relations.
I see. But maybe potential increase wouldn't be that big, if you add boundaries?
Or maybe you can preserve only some levels of boundaries?
Or you can use boundary data form --bounds option?
Anyway, I prefer version 1 - keep complete relation, that could be useful for mkgmap.
-- Best regards, Andrzej _______________________________________________ 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 [1]
_______________________________________________ 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 [1]
_______________________________________________ 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 [1] Links: ------ [1] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
participants (3)
-
Andrzej Popowski -
Colin Smale -
Gerd Petermann