Hi! Mark Burton schrieb:

...

Are there any plans to support advanced multipolygons in mkgmap?

Sorry, I can only give you a negative reply in that I know that I won't be signing up for working on that.

Still, all contributions are welcome, if you can program, why not have a go at it yourself?

Well, I am already maintaining one tool and two maps, so I guess attacking a non-trivial problem in a completely unfamiliar software on top of that doesn't sound like a particularly good idea. bye Nop

Hi! Am 09.12.2009 16:41, schrieb Torsten Leistikow:

Nop schrieb am 08.12.2009 22:09: Actually I am not sure, whether the advanced multipolygons themself are a particularly good idea. So perhaps this might be a perfect match :-)

In the end, there are two possible solutions for this problem: Either the advanced multipolygons are used more and more, so that we have to adapt mkgmap some day, for beeing satisfied with our maps. Or the OSM-Garmin maps are used more and more, so that the users will stop mapping the advanced multipolygons, because they are missing in their maps.

I am not much in favour of the advanced multipolygons myself and have pointed out the problems involved, but since they are documented as state-of-the-art in the wiki, the algorithm to implement them is published and they are already supported both by Mapnik and Osmarender, there is no point in whishing them to go away. In the data I am compiling for my maps I am observing a rising use of those multipolygons, that was the reason for my question. There has also been an earlier "bug" report by extremecarver on this. I think it is just a matter of time until this has to be solved, I just wondered whether the time has already come. :-) bye Nop