>> >> On 05.12.2010 15:48, WanMil wrote: >>> I committed r1746 to the coast branch. >>> The floodblocker rules which OSM elements are used to detect land and as >>> sea areas can now be configured in the special style >>> resources/styles/floodblocker. >>> If this style marks a ways as garmin type 0x01 the way is on land >>> whereas 0x02 is used for sea. Now you can configure your own rules which >>> tag combinations should be used for the flood blocking algorithm. >>> >>> Have fun! >>> WanMil >>> >>> >> I have used it without problems, however currently all geofabrik >> extracts I had used (even Australia/Oceania or Lower Saxony) worked on >> the old version without problems too, while often these extracts caused >> severe flooding (haven't got any broken extracts saved however)... >> Also not really sure if my command line makes sense: >> /generate-sea=--generate-sea=extend-sea-sectors,close-gaps=6000,floodblocker,fbgap=50,fbthres=500,fbratio=5/ >> >> (until now I have been using: >> /generate-sea=--generate-sea=polygons,extend-sea-sectors,close-gaps=6000/ ) >> >> I think it is safe to commit the coast branch to trunk (and maybe >> include some defaults in the help file, especially I have no clue about >> a sensible fbration value), I could not note any problems..... >> > > Felix, > > thanks for testing! > > Yesterday I have committed that the multipolygon sea generation also > creates land polygons. This should fix a shortcoming which prevented > some users from using the mulitpolygon sea generation. > > What I am interested in at the moment: > Does the external coastline file loading fit your needs? I am a bit > concerned about memory requirements and would like to decrease its > memory footprint. > > > The following things should be done before merging back the branch to trunk: > * Improve multipolygon processing performance for sea polygons. The mp > algorithm can count on the "outer" and "inner" tags so the matrix which > polygon is contained by which polygon should be less complex to create > * @Steve: Can you check if my changes to the ElementSaver class and my > coastfile loading mechanism feels good for you? Maybe you want to > simplify some things? > * Decrease memory footprint of the coastline file loading. (Maybe this > could also be done after merging back). > > > Have fun! > WanMil
The performance improvement does not work. So from my point of view the coast branch can be merged back to trunk. Any objections to this? WanMil _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
