0x10 for residential in default style
Hello all, At the moment, I’m merging my own custom style with the default, and I’m wondering about the use of code 0x10 for landuse=residential in the polygons file. Is 0x10 a standard Garmin code for residential areas? If not, isn’t 0x01/0x02/0x03 a better choice (0x03 is already in use for place=village)? BTW: I hope to be able to switch completely to the default style and then fit my TYP file to that. When I’m done with that, is there any interest for that TYP file? Regards, J-----.
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:45:03PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
At the moment, I'm merging my own custom style with the default, and I'm wondering about the use of code 0x10 for landuse=residential in the polygons file. Is 0x10 a standard Garmin code for residential areas?
It is not. I just made it up, because it seemed to render fine in my Edge 705.
If not, isn't 0x01/0x02/0x03 a better choice (0x03 is already in use for place=village)?
Could be. I guess that we should revise the polygon rules very soon. Do you agree with my idea that the landuse=residential and building=* polygons should be mutually exclusive? That is, show only the landuse=residential on higher zoom levels and only the buildings on lower zoom levels?
BTW: I hope to be able to switch completely to the default style and then fit my TYP file to that. When I'm done with that, is there any interest for that TYP file?
Yes. We could have multiple TYP files for the default style. Minko's Mapnik.TYP can be good for newer devices, while cferrero and I seem to prefer simpler "non-spaghetti" layout that works on older devices. I would prefer to have an open source TYP file generator or editor, so that changes to the TYP file could be tracked. But I guess we can live with binary-only TYP files, if there is no other choice. Marko
Thank you for the quick response. For now I'll keep using my own 0x01 for landuse=residential. If the polygons styling needs work I'm willing to help. Just let me know what I can do. Switching from landuse=residential to building=* may be a nice solution (I did not know it is possible), but I'm not sure what the results are when one of those is missing in OSM. I'm afraid my TYP file is for newer models too, I made it for my own Oregon. Regards, J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: MarkoMäkelä Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:08 PM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 09:45:03PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
At the moment, I'm merging my own custom style with the default, and I'm wondering about the use of code 0x10 for landuse=residential in the polygons file. Is 0x10 a standard Garmin code for residential areas?
It is not. I just made it up, because it seemed to render fine in my Edge 705.
If not, isn't 0x01/0x02/0x03 a better choice (0x03 is already in use for place=village)?
Could be. I guess that we should revise the polygon rules very soon. Do you agree with my idea that the landuse=residential and building=* polygons should be mutually exclusive? That is, show only the landuse=residential on higher zoom levels and only the buildings on lower zoom levels?
BTW: I hope to be able to switch completely to the default style and then fit my TYP file to that. When I'm done with that, is there any interest for that TYP file?
Yes. We could have multiple TYP files for the default style. Minko's Mapnik.TYP can be good for newer devices, while cferrero and I seem to prefer simpler "non-spaghetti" layout that works on older devices. I would prefer to have an open source TYP file generator or editor, so that changes to the TYP file could be tracked. But I guess we can live with binary-only TYP files, if there is no other choice. Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:29:12PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
If the polygons styling needs work I'm willing to help. Just let me know what I can do.
Basically, suggest some changes, preferrably by sending patches.
Switching from landuse=residential to building=* may be a nice solution (I did not know it is possible), but I'm not sure what the results are when one of those is missing in OSM.
landuse=residential [0x10 resolution 23-18] building=* | man_made=* | amenity=* | tourism=* [0x13 resolution 24] When there is no building=*, you would see nothing at resolution 24. When there is no landuse=residential, you would see nothing at resolutions 18 to 23. The 18 could be too high, BTW. I would like the map to render fast at wide zooms and be small in size.
I'm afraid my TYP file is for newer models too, I made it for my own Oregon.
Do you know this problem? Does your TYP file have extra "border" lines around lines (other than motorways)? http://cferrero.net/maps/img/spag4.bmp http://cferrero.net/maps/img/nospag.bmp Marko
Marko wrote:
landuse=residential [0x10 resolution 23-18] building=* | man_made=* | amenity=* | tourism=* [0x13 resolution 24]
Be careful with man_made=* because there are also line elements like man_made=pier, man_made=dyke, embankment etc. Mkgmap makes it a closed area which can be wrong. I suggest man_made=pier & area=yes [0x13 resolution 24] Or make a check if the area is closed or not (is this possible?) On my map I render buildings at level 24-23 and from level 22 and higher landuse=residential, which works fine in very well mapped regions like the Netherlands. More examples about those border lines in the typ file: http://sites.google.com/site/openfietsmap/news/12-12-2010
Marko, I'll have a look at the polygons style file. For know I'll send the results of merging the default style with my own (polygons-1829-JM.patch, attached). I hope the comments make clear what I did. It's not much yet. J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: MarkoMäkelä Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:41 PM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:29:12PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
If the polygons styling needs work I'm willing to help. Just let me know what I can do.
Basically, suggest some changes, preferrably by sending patches.
Did go through the polygons style file once, and made some changes. Patch is attached. The patch also inlcudes the lines file, as I made some changes there too. I did use some 'custom' types, and did not yet test how they look without a TYP file. I first wanted to check how others think about it. In the patch I also included some notes. Please comment... J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: Jeroen Muris Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 12:08 AM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: [mkgmap-dev] patch for polygons file Marko, I'll have a look at the polygons style file. For know I'll send the results of merging the default style with my own (polygons-1829-JM.patch, attached). I hope the comments make clear what I did. It's not much yet. J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: MarkoMäkelä Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:41 PM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:29:12PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
If the polygons styling needs work I'm willing to help. Just let me know what I can do.
Basically, suggest some changes, preferrably by sending patches. _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
No, I don't know this problem - a least not on my device (Oregon 550T). But the definitions in my TYP file cause the line to be much narrower - combned with the style definitions they almost never overlap. I just checked, and when I zoom out with a 'crowded' style, the device leaves out the borders of the lines completely - thus avoiding the problem. And where different types of ways meet at normal zoom levels, the ends are 'blended' most of the time. But is someone want me to test another *.img file, I'm happy to oblige. Regards, J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: MarkoMäkelä Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:41 PM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style Do you know this problem? Does your TYP file have extra "border" lines around lines (other than motorways)? http://cferrero.net/maps/img/spag4.bmp http://cferrero.net/maps/img/nospag.bmp
Hi Jeroen In your lines style I see 30 lines of code to render tunnels [0x12]. You could do this with one line as a layer on top of each highway: (tunnel=yes | tunnel=true) & (railway!=subway | waterway!=*) [0x12 resolution 23 continue with_actions] This way you don't need to specify each road with a tunnel tag separately. In the typ file it is rendered as a transparent bitmap with two dashed lines with enough space in between to render the highways: - - - - - - - - tunnel=yes [0x12] _______________ _______________ highway=primary [0x01] - - - - - - - - ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: "Jeroen Muris" No, I don't know this problem - a least not on my device (Oregon 550T). But the definitions in my TYP file cause the line to be much narrower - combned with the style definitions they almost never overlap. I just checked, and when I zoom out with a 'crowded' style, the device leaves out the borders of the lines completely - thus avoiding the problem. And where different types of ways meet at normal zoom levels, the ends are 'blended' most of the time. But is someone want me to test another *.img file, I'm happy to oblige. Regards, J-----.
Thank you for this suggestion. I can use it for the bridges (for which I did not have a nice solution yet). But for the tunnels the goal is not to add an indicator for a tunnel, but to use one single dashed line for all tunnels, but with different Garmin routing properties. That's why I list them all. I could have shortened the list, but this way it is an altered copy of all the original ways and easier to maintain. J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: Minko Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:56 AM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style Hi Jeroen In your lines style I see 30 lines of code to render tunnels [0x12]. You could do this with one line as a layer on top of each highway: (tunnel=yes | tunnel=true) & (railway!=subway | waterway!=*) [0x12 resolution 23 continue with_actions] This way you don't need to specify each road with a tunnel tag separately. In the typ file it is rendered as a transparent bitmap with two dashed lines with enough space in between to render the highways: --- 8< --- snip --- 8< ---
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:34:35PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
No, I don't know this problem - a least not on my device (Oregon 550T). But the definitions in my TYP file cause the line to be much narrower - combned with the style definitions they almost never overlap. I just checked, and when I zoom out with a 'crowded' style, the device leaves out the borders of the lines completely - thus avoiding the problem. And where different types of ways meet at normal zoom levels, the ends are 'blended' most of the time.
Can you make your TYP file available for download somewhere? I hope that it is compatible with the default style. Which product-id and family-id is your TYP file using? If you prepared a TYP file with product-id=1, family-id=1, I could test it easily (without recompiling the map) on my Edge 705. Marko
Marko (and others interested), A copy of the current version of my TYP file can be found on http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/M0000001-JM.TYP. Personally I use product 1 and family 3141, but this copy is compiled for family ID 1. It is a work in progress, and not all types are used in the default style. All types from the default style should be present though... Please let me know how it looks on your device. Regards, J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: MarkoMäkelä Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:45 PM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 10:34:35PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
No, I don't know this problem - a least not on my device (Oregon 550T). But the definitions in my TYP file cause the line to be much narrower - combned with the style definitions they almost never overlap. I just checked, and when I zoom out with a 'crowded' style, the device leaves out the borders of the lines completely - thus avoiding the problem. And where different types of ways meet at normal zoom levels, the ends are 'blended' most of the time.
Can you make your TYP file available for download somewhere? I hope that it is compatible with the default style. Which product-id and family-id is your TYP file using? If you prepared a TYP file with product-id=1, family-id=1, I could test it easily (without recompiling the map) on my Edge 705. Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Jeroen, On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
Marko (and others interested),
A copy of the current version of my TYP file can be found on http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/M0000001-JM.TYP.
Personally I use product 1 and family 3141, but this copy is compiled for family ID 1. It is a work in progress, and not all types are used in the default style. All types from the default style should be present though...
Please let me know how it looks on your device.
I liked the landuse and building polygons. I do not like the spaghetti (black border lines of 0x05, 0x06 and 0x01, among others). 0x09 looks fine (albeit a little wide). Actually, most ways look a bit too wide; they are hiding the cycleway or footway next to them. You can see an example of the spaghetti (with gray border lines instead of black) here: http://cferrero.net/maps/img/spag4.bmp Can you override the Garmin yellow background colour with the TYP file? If you can, that would make the black border lines unnecessary, wouldn't it? Best regards, Marko
Marko, You're right: I like te map better without the borders on the roads. I made a version of my TYP file with a light grey background (type 0x4b) and all the borders stripped off the line definitions. It still needs tweaking colours and widths, but the general impression is lighter, clearer in MapSource, BaseCamp and the Oregon 550. I you want to try, I uploaded a copy with family ID 1 at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/M0000001-JM-no_spaghetti.TYP. I'd like to hear if the grey background works on your device too. If you're wondering why the definition of 0x4b is a bitmap, I believe I remember this works better than a solid color on more devices... Regards, J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: MarkoMäkelä Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 10:23 PM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style Hi Jeroen, On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
Marko (and others interested),
A copy of the current version of my TYP file can be found on http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/M0000001-JM.TYP.
Personally I use product 1 and family 3141, but this copy is compiled for family ID 1. It is a work in progress, and not all types are used in the default style. All types from the default style should be present though...
Please let me know how it looks on your device.
I liked the landuse and building polygons. I do not like the spaghetti (black border lines of 0x05, 0x06 and 0x01, among others). 0x09 looks fine (albeit a little wide). Actually, most ways look a bit too wide; they are hiding the cycleway or footway next to them. You can see an example of the spaghetti (with gray border lines instead of black) here: http://cferrero.net/maps/img/spag4.bmp Can you override the Garmin yellow background colour with the TYP file? If you can, that would make the black border lines unnecessary, wouldn't it? Best regards, Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Jeroen, A few remarks on your typ file: You use bridges for the lines that are reserved for contour lines. I dont know if they are routable, and this not make it possible to make maps with contour lines (elevation profiles might not work?). When zooming out, Railway type 0x14 disappears quickly on many gps units by default (strange bug in garmin software). Maybe you can "recycle" type 0x24 for the railways at lower zoomlevels (22-18?).
Hi Jeroen,
You're right: I like te map better without the borders on the roads. I made a version of my TYP file with a light grey background (type 0x4b) and all the borders stripped off the line definitions. It still needs tweaking colours and widths, but the general impression is lighter, clearer in MapSource, BaseCamp and the Oregon 550.
Some 15 years ago, when I lived in Germany for a few months, I remember the outcry of the renaming of Deutsche Bundesbahn to Deutsche Bahn and the accompanying logo renewal. Someone just removed one border around the letters DB and charged a large sum for it. One of the proposed advantages was clarity on low-resolution media, such as fax paper. The fax medium may be obsolete nowadays, but the tiny screen on some navigators has a similar if not lower resolution.
I you want to try, I uploaded a copy with family ID 1 at http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/M0000001-JM-no_spaghetti.TYP
Thank you.
I'd like to hear if the grey background works on your device too.
I am not using a background polygon on my map. It still is solid yellow. The contrast between the yellow residential roads and the yellow background is too low. All in all, I find the colors a bit pale or low-contrast. The contrast between the light blue "sea" and the light gray "industrial area" is too low in harbours. Waters could be a darker shade of blue. The orange roads and the light blue waterways are one or two pixels too wide for my taste. I have the feeling that the map draws more slowly with this TYP file. I have not tried to measure it. With these issues corrected and with the default names localized, I think that this could be the start of a good alternative to the "default TYP file" built into Garmin devices. Best regards, Marko
Marko, Minko, and others, Thank you for your feedback. I'm aware my style/TYP files use the contour types for bridges. Guess contours are not very importnt to me, living in the flat Netherlands. If anyone has a better suggestion, please let me know. The fact the contours may not be routable is no problem, as I use them as an addition to the 'normal' ways. I had already noticed the 0x14 lines disappearing. Now I know is't a Garmin thing, I switched between 0x14 and 0x24 (before 0x24 was used in an overlay to show tramways on roads). The widths of the different ways now match - in my opinion. To lose the yellow roads (that hardly show on a yellow background), I switched around some other colours: - footpath was green, now grey - other paths were green, now yellow - tracks were green, now grey (with transparent centre) - pedestrian was green, now grey - bicycle was purple, now green - motorways and primaries were red, now purple - secondary roads etc. were orange, now red - local roads were yellow, now orange For who's interested, I uploaded a copy of the latest TYP file, for family ID 1: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/M0000001-JM-new_colours.TYP With the current default style not all element will show. Some alterations needed changes in the style files too (like the bridges). I attached a patchfile wth those changes. It's also uploaded: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/style-JM-20110212_1848.diff Please comment! And for if and when (some of) my changes make it to the trunk, what's the correct way to get this done? Regards, J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: Minko Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 9:07 AM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style Hi Jeroen, A few remarks on your typ file: You use bridges for the lines that are reserved for contour lines. I dont know if they are routable, and this not make it possible to make maps with contour lines (elevation profiles might not work?). When zooming out, Railway type 0x14 disappears quickly on many gps units by default (strange bug in garmin software). Maybe you can "recycle" type 0x24 for the railways at lower zoomlevels (22-18?). -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: MarkoMäkelä Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 10:23 PM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style Hi Jeroen, On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:18:26PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
Marko (and others interested),
A copy of the current version of my TYP file can be found on http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/M0000001-JM.TYP.
Personally I use product 1 and family 3141, but this copy is compiled for family ID 1. It is a work in progress, and not all types are used in the default style. All types from the default style should be present though...
Please let me know how it looks on your device.
I liked the landuse and building polygons. I do not like the spaghetti (black border lines of 0x05, 0x06 and 0x01, among others). 0x09 looks fine (albeit a little wide). Actually, most ways look a bit too wide; they are hiding the cycleway or footway next to them. You can see an example of the spaghetti (with gray border lines instead of black) here: http://cferrero.net/maps/img/spag4.bmp Can you override the Garmin yellow background colour with the TYP file? If you can, that would make the black border lines unnecessary, wouldn't it? Best regards, Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Jeroen wrote: - other paths were green, now yellow On a yellow background? Hard to see I guess ;-) You can try to use extended line types like 0x100/00-1f 0x101/00-1f etc Note that even with a typ file some of them will not show up on some devices, and they are not routable. See my typ files on http://openfietsmap.nl
Mmmmm... Yellow on yellow, may indeed be not ideal. Ill try and find something else! Those extended linetypes, will they have any effect on devices that don't support them? Or are they simply ignored? I may use them for non-routable, non-essential lines. And: may I compliment you on openfietskaart.nl? I'm definitely going to try that map! The screenshots look vey nice, and I saw the maps are very up to date. Regards, J-----. Op 12 feb. 2011 om 19:04 heeft Minko <ligfietser@online.nl> het volgende geschreven:
Jeroen wrote: - other paths were green, now yellow
On a yellow background? Hard to see I guess ;-)
You can try to use extended line types like 0x100/00-1f 0x101/00-1f etc Note that even with a typ file some of them will not show up on some devices, and they are not routable. See my typ files on http://openfietsmap.nl
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Jeroen, On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 02:09:20PM +0100, Jeroen Muris wrote:
For who's interested, I uploaded a copy of the latest TYP file, for family ID 1: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/M0000001-JM-new_colours.TYP
With the current default style not all element will show. Some alterations needed changes in the style files too (like the bridges). I attached a patchfile wth those changes. It's also uploaded: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20232727/style-JM-20110212_1848.diff
Please comment!
Sorry, I have been too busy. Let me see how your patch applies to the current tree. Not very well, many large conflicts, now that the resolutions were tuned down as suggested by Felix (extremecarver). I used the following commands to apply your patch. Subversion usually does a nice job merging changes, leaving only the true conflicts: svn update -r1848 resources/styles/default/ patch -p0<style-JM-20110212_1848.diff svn update I am not sure if it is a good idea to use different type codes for different classes of bridges. Why not use just one line type for bridge, and overlay that with the road? Make the bridge line very wide, with a transparent center, so that the underlying road can be drawn there. Same for tunnels (but maybe use a different overlay line type than for bridges). I would keep the default style so that it works without any TYP file. The TYP-enhanced style should be a separate style that is derived from the default style. See resources/styles/marine for an example of that. In the info file, it specifies base-style=default.
And for if and when (some of) my changes make it to the trunk, what's the correct way to get this done?
Can you prepare something minimal that derives from the default style? For the TYP files, I would suggest that you create at least two variants: no-spaghetti, thin lines for old devices, and fancier line styles for new devices. As Minko suggested, try to avoid repurposing the built-in line types (such as contour lines). For bridge and tunnel overlays, I guess that you should choose non-routable line types just in case. Best regards, Marko
Hello all, By accident/serendipity I found a bug/feature regarding the borders/'shadows' on ways on Garmin devices. If in your TYP file you set a type up to use 2 colours (background and border), but set the border width to 0, then BaseCamp, MapSource and the Garmin Oregon 550t display this with a very thin border/shadow. Regards, J-----. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- From: MarkoMäkelä Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 10:41 PM To: Development list for mkgmap Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] 0x10 for residential in default style --- 8< --- snip --- 8< --- Do you know this problem? Does your TYP file have extra "border" lines around lines (other than motorways)? http://cferrero.net/maps/img/spag4.bmp http://cferrero.net/maps/img/nospag.bmp Marko _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
participants (3)
-
Jeroen Muris -
Marko Mäkelä -
Minko