More method options for is_in function
Hi all, see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=4442 @Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch. Gerd
Hi Gerd I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on'). I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions. There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me: It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof. w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct. Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod. This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context. Ticker On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=4442
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Ticker, reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on'). I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions. There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me: It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof. w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct. Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod. This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context. Ticker On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=4442
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Gerd Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other. Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual. Ticker On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on').
I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof.
w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=444 2
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Ticker, my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is on the boundary, not in or out. With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we test, so I tried to do something similar with points. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other. Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual. Ticker On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on').
I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof.
w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=444 2
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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 Ticker, thinking again about it we should probably do this with points: If point is and inside of any polygon but on boundary of more than one polygon, merge those and check if it is inside the merged area. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:31 An: Ticker Berkin; Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Ticker, my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is on the boundary, not in or out. With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we test, so I tried to do something similar with points. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other. Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual. Ticker On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on').
I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof.
w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=444 2
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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 Gerd It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm not sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect to the edges of one polygon that are within the other. I've just seen your next posting. For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON query. So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the OSM defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore the issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an arbitr ary decision anyway. Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is on the boundary, not in or out. With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we test, so I tried to do something similar with points.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other.
Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on').
I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof.
w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=4 44 2
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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 Ticker, I've attached a sample file. Assume point rule natural=tree & isin(landuse,forest,ON)=true {...} For me, tree1 is not ON, but IN, so result should be false ON would be okay for tree2 and tree4 The node tree3 is obbiously IN but if multipolygon cutting devides the mp exactly on the line it would be on two boundaries unless we merge them again for the test. Reg. performance it probably doesn't matter much, these cases are rare and the point-in-polygon test is rather fast compared to the line-in-polygon test. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 10:05 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm not sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect to the edges of one polygon that are within the other. I've just seen your next posting. For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON query. So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the OSM defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore the issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an arbitr ary decision anyway. Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is on the boundary, not in or out. With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we test, so I tried to do something similar with points.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other.
Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on').
I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof.
w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev=4 44 2
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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 Gerd Case 1 looks like 2 independent polygons that happen to be touching. Before Wood2 is planted, Tree1 is on the edge of Wood1. Should mapping Wood2 change this state? - I don't know. If these get merged anyway to handle mp-cutting then we have forced the answer - it will no longer be ON. Yes to the rest. POINT ON test should invoke merging, but this isn't necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 09:43 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
I've attached a sample file. Assume point rule natural=tree & isin(landuse,forest,ON)=true {...}
For me, tree1 is not ON, but IN, so result should be false ON would be okay for tree2 and tree4 The node tree3 is obbiously IN but if multipolygon cutting devides the mp exactly on the line it would be on two boundaries unless we merge them again for the test.
Reg. performance it probably doesn't matter much, these cases are rare and the point-in-polygon test is rather fast compared to the line-in-polygon test.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 10:05 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm not sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect to the edges of one polygon that are within the other.
I've just seen your next posting.
For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON query.
So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the OSM defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore the issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an arbitr ary decision anyway.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is on the boundary, not in or out. With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we test, so I tried to do something similar with points.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other.
Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on').
I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof.
w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev =4 44 2
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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 Ticker, "but this isn't necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON" Why not for IN? Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 11:07 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd Case 1 looks like 2 independent polygons that happen to be touching. Before Wood2 is planted, Tree1 is on the edge of Wood1. Should mapping Wood2 change this state? - I don't know. If these get merged anyway to handle mp-cutting then we have forced the answer - it will no longer be ON. Yes to the rest. POINT ON test should invoke merging, but this isn't necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 09:43 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
I've attached a sample file. Assume point rule natural=tree & isin(landuse,forest,ON)=true {...}
For me, tree1 is not ON, but IN, so result should be false ON would be okay for tree2 and tree4 The node tree3 is obbiously IN but if multipolygon cutting devides the mp exactly on the line it would be on two boundaries unless we merge them again for the test.
Reg. performance it probably doesn't matter much, these cases are rare and the point-in-polygon test is rather fast compared to the line-in-polygon test.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 10:05 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm not sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect to the edges of one polygon that are within the other.
I've just seen your next posting.
For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON query.
So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the OSM defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore the issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an arbitr ary decision anyway.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is on the boundary, not in or out. With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we test, so I tried to do something similar with points.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other.
Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on').
I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof.
w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev =4 44 2
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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 Gerd OK - If we merge so that, for a node on a shared edge, is_in(...,on) is false, then is_in(...,in) should be true, so must merge for this as well. Ticker PS: please can you commit my previous patch so that I can do the next stages On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 10:16 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
"but this isn't necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON" Why not for IN?
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 11:07 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
Case 1 looks like 2 independent polygons that happen to be touching. Before Wood2 is planted, Tree1 is on the edge of Wood1. Should mapping Wood2 change this state? - I don't know. If these get merged anyway to handle mp-cutting then we have forced the answer - it will no longer be ON.
Yes to the rest. POINT ON test should invoke merging, but this isn't necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 09:43 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
I've attached a sample file. Assume point rule natural=tree & isin(landuse,forest,ON)=true {...}
For me, tree1 is not ON, but IN, so result should be false ON would be okay for tree2 and tree4 The node tree3 is obbiously IN but if multipolygon cutting devides the mp exactly on the line it would be on two boundaries unless we merge them again for the test.
Reg. performance it probably doesn't matter much, these cases are rare and the point-in-polygon test is rather fast compared to the line-in-polygon test.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 10:05 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm not sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect to the edges of one polygon that are within the other.
I've just seen your next posting.
For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON query.
So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the OSM defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore the issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an arbitr ary decision anyway.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is on the boundary, not in or out. With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we test, so I tried to do something similar with points.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other.
Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border.
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on').
I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof.
w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&r ev =4 44 2
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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 I've started some initial documentation for this that will go into the Style Manual. The attached patch lists the options, but you might find it a bit unreadable. With the next auto-build after this is applied, the updated manual appear in the branches download zip. @gerd: is this how it happens? But the simple answer to your question is, for a rule in "lines" or "polygons", what you have written will still work. Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 12:32 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Gerd,
is_in(landuse,residential,all)=true
how do you write that now?
Greets Arndt
Gerd Petermann < GPetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com> hat am 10. Februar 2020 um 14:14 geschrieben:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev =4442
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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 Arndt Are you including inc/access from points? Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 13:54 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Ticker,
i get this:
13:40:20,54 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4443 Speiche_Fabrik Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported
Reason is, the is_in command is in the access-file :)
Thank you
Arndt
Ticker Berkin < rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> hat am 11. Februar 2020 um 13:02 geschrieben:
Hi
I've started some initial documentation for this that will go into the Style Manual.
The attached patch lists the options, but you might find it a bit unreadable.
With the next auto-build after this is applied, the updated manual appear in the branches download zip. @gerd: is this how it happens?
But the simple answer to your question is, for a rule in "lines" or "polygons", what you have written will still work.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 12:32 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Gerd,
is_in(landuse,residential,all)=true
how do you write that now?
Greets Arndt
Gerd Petermann < GPetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com> hat am 10. Februar 2020 um 14:14 geschrieben:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap&rev =4442
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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 Arndt Can you try http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/download/mkgmap-is-in-r4446.zip If the method parameter isn't understood, it lists the acceptable method parameters for the context (points/lines/polygons). I couldn't reproduce the problem with the previous version I had, and I couldn't see how the include should have effected anything. Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 19:23 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Ticker,
i include "access" from lines. It´s one of the first lines. Move the is_in command to the line file, mkgmap runs without errors. But is_in doesn´t work. With r-4428 is the result OK.
(highway~'motorway|trunk|primary|secondary|tertiary|unclassified|mino r|residential|living_street|cycleway|steps') {set isin=n} highway=* & rad!=ja & laufen!=ja & tunnel!=* & bridge!=* & isin!=n & is_in(landuse,cemetery,all)=true {set isin=j} ... ... isin=j {set rad=nein} isin=j {set highway=tobadforbike}
Greets Arndt
P.S. My complete style is here: https://speichenkarte.de/ "Steuerdateien"
Ticker Berkin < rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> hat am 11. Februar 2020 um 16:01 geschrieben:
Hi Arndt
Are you including inc/access from points?
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 13:54 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Ticker,
i get this:
13:40:20,54 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4443 Speiche_Fabrik Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported
Reason is, the is_in command is in the access-file :)
Thank you
Arndt
Ticker Berkin < rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> hat am 11. Februar 2020 um 13:02 geschrieben:
Hi
I've started some initial documentation for this that will go into the Style Manual.
The attached patch lists the options, but you might find it a bit unreadable.
With the next auto-build after this is applied, the updated manual appear in the branches download zip. @gerd: is this how it happens?
But the simple answer to your question is, for a rule in "lines" or "polygons", what you have written will still work.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 12:32 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Gerd,
is_in(landuse,residential,all)=true
how do you write that now?
Greets Arndt
Gerd Petermann < GPetermann_muenchen@hotmail.com> hat am 10. Februar 2020 um 14:14 geschrieben:
Hi all,
see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap &rev =4442
@Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch.
Gerd _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Arndt you have an include 'inc/access' in styles_base/points and styles_gravel/points which gives the error about unsupported options. The crash is related: because the calls are textually identical, the optimiser semi-tries to share them between points and lines processing, it initializes one instance only, but later the correct ones are called for the 2 contexts. I introduced this assertion error in the last update to catch strange things like this happening. Before it would have quietly returned "false" Ticker On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 06:37 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Ticker,
mkgmap tell me:
6:33:39,37 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Could not open style
If i move the "is_in" command to the line file, mkgmap say:
6:30:43,78 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInFun ction.java:119) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(CachedFu nction.java:61) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) ...
Hi Ticker, I think CachedFunction can't be used without changes. It uses getName() which just returns "is_in" (no parameters). Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2020 10:26 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Arndt you have an include 'inc/access' in styles_base/points and styles_gravel/points which gives the error about unsupported options. The crash is related: because the calls are textually identical, the optimiser semi-tries to share them between points and lines processing, it initializes one instance only, but later the correct ones are called for the 2 contexts. I introduced this assertion error in the last update to catch strange things like this happening. Before it would have quietly returned "false" Ticker On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 06:37 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Ticker,
mkgmap tell me:
6:33:39,37 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Could not open style
If i move the "is_in" command to the line file, mkgmap say:
6:30:43,78 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInFun ction.java:119) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(CachedFu nction.java:61) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) ...
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Gerd I overrode getCacheTag() to fix this aspect, and you overrode toString() for something relating to the common sub-expressions; in both cases including the 'kind' and all the parameters. Yesterday, experimenting, I found it was consistent about create 2 instances, augmenting the same one twice and then using just that one for the actual work, but this was when the calls were in the same section. So, sometime I should investigate what happen when there valid identical calls in 2 sections. Ticker On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 09:53 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
I think CachedFunction can't be used without changes. It uses getName() which just returns "is_in" (no parameters).
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2020 10:26 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Arndt
you have an include 'inc/access' in styles_base/points and styles_gravel/points
which gives the error about unsupported options.
The crash is related: because the calls are textually identical, the optimiser semi-tries to share them between points and lines processing, it initializes one instance only, but later the correct ones are called for the 2 contexts. I introduced this assertion error in the last update to catch strange things like this happening. Before it would have quietly returned "false"
Ticker
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 06:37 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Ticker,
mkgmap tell me:
6:33:39,37 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Could not open style
If i move the "is_in" command to the line file, mkgmap say:
6:30:43,78 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInF un ction.java:119) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(Cached Fu nction.java:61) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) ...
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Hi Ticker, ah, yes, did not see the override. There is another caching mechanism in RuleSet.resolveType(int cacheId, Element el, TypeResult result) which might kick in. Not sure if this is relevant but you should be aware of it. Gerd ________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2020 11:16 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd I overrode getCacheTag() to fix this aspect, and you overrode toString() for something relating to the common sub-expressions; in both cases including the 'kind' and all the parameters. Yesterday, experimenting, I found it was consistent about create 2 instances, augmenting the same one twice and then using just that one for the actual work, but this was when the calls were in the same section. So, sometime I should investigate what happen when there valid identical calls in 2 sections. Ticker On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 09:53 +0000, Gerd Petermann wrote:
Hi Ticker,
I think CachedFunction can't be used without changes. It uses getName() which just returns "is_in" (no parameters).
Gerd
________________________________________ Von: mkgmap-dev <mkgmap-dev-bounces@lists.mkgmap.org.uk> im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin <rwb-mkgmap@jagit.co.uk> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2020 10:26 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Arndt
you have an include 'inc/access' in styles_base/points and styles_gravel/points
which gives the error about unsupported options.
The crash is related: because the calls are textually identical, the optimiser semi-tries to share them between points and lines processing, it initializes one instance only, but later the correct ones are called for the 2 contexts. I introduced this assertion error in the last update to catch strange things like this happening. Before it would have quietly returned "false"
Ticker
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 06:37 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Ticker,
mkgmap tell me:
6:33:39,37 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Could not open style
If i move the "is_in" command to the line file, mkgmap say:
6:30:43,78 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInF un ction.java:119) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(Cached Fu nction.java:61) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) ...
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (4)
-
Arndt Röhrig -
Gerd Petermann -
Gerd Petermann
-
Ticker Berkin