On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 03:59:28PM +0100, Adrian wrote:
>I inspected the coastline data of this tile in JOSM and I could not see
>any problem with it.
Did you invoke the JOSM Validator on it? The coastline checks are (or at
least used to be) in the INFO level; you may have to crank up the
chattiness.
Note that JOSM and mkgmap do not detect the same class of coastline
errors; there is some overlap. Last time I had to use my brain a little
was when mkgmap emitted a warning but JOSM Validator thought it is fine.
If I remember correctly, the problem was that the map data contained two
clockwise (or counter-clockwise) natural=coastline ways so that they did
not intersect, but one way fully enclosed the other.
I would be surprised if mkgmap did not emit some coastline warnings for
the map data. It is sometimes a bit challenging to decipher the messages
and it might be impractical to keep the data tidy at all times. In
Finland, coastline bugs occur rarely, maybe a few bugs once in a couple
of weeks.
I only use extend-sea-sectors for one tile, as a work-around because the
coastline in the finland.osm.pbf in the north (Tornio/Haparanda) does
not extend to as far west as my tile would like to have it. Before going
PBF, I had a sed or perl filter that moved the coastline endpoint to the
west in the XML data.
Best regards,
Marko
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
