Ok, that's great!
Anyhow I think we should first get a consensus if road might be reversed
and where that should happen.
Which solution do you prefer? I think an additional tag might solve most
problems?
WanMil
Hi WanMil,
sorry, I meant that with the new patch everything looks good because the
number of restrictions
is the same as without the patch.
Gerd
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 22:15:04 +0100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] [PATCH] RoadMerger reverses roads
>
> Hi Gerd,
>
> what does that mean? Do you see the same following results:
> r2946 with --x-no-mergeroads: 264 (valid) turn restirictions, 22 invalid
> r2946 with activated mergeroads : 264 (valid) turn restirictions, 22
invalid
> r2946 with patch and --x-no-mergeroads: 264 (valid) turn restirictions,
> 22 invalid
> r2946 with patch and activated mergeroads : 223 (valid) turn
> restirictions, 25 invalid
>
> I wonder how that's possible because there are a lot of changes between
> v2 and v3 of the patch. I fixed some problems that removed some turn
> restrictions. Can you please check again?
>
> WanMil
>
> > Hi WanMil,
> >
> > reg. turn restrictions I see no change in my test case, but I just
> > compared the numbers.
> >
> > Gerd
> >
> > Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 22:25:55 +0100
> > From: [email protected]
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] [PATCH] RoadMerger reverses roads
> >
> > Attached is another patch that reverses roads in the RoadMerger if
> > applicable.
> >
> > I have checked the patch by adding debug statements to the
> > RestrictionRelation.addRestriction(..) method. There are some
> > differences but as far as I could see the differences are only in some
> > coords. I have checked some and all were caused by road merges.
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > 3---2---
> > \
> > 4--------1---5
> > When having a only_straightforward restriction from 4 via 1 to 5
point 2
> > is added to the restriction without merging. When merging the road 1-2
> > and 2-3 node 2 is no longer a routing node and therefor point 3 is
added
> > to the restriction instead of point 2.
> >
> > @Gerd: can you please check again if your tests still show any problem?
> > Thanks!
> >
> > WanMil
> >
> >
> >> Hi Gerd,
> >>
> >> I've found two problems but have no time today to fix it. Will post a
> >> patch within the next days.
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot for testing!!
> >>
> >> WanMil
> >>
> >>> Hi Gerd,
> >>>
> >>> I will check that.
> >>>
> >>> WanMil
> >>>
> >>>> Hi WanMil,
> >>>>
> >>>> the patch has an influence on the number of turn restrictions.
> >>>> For a tile in northern Germany GPSMapEdit shows :
> >>>> r2946 with --x-no-mergeroads: 264 (valid) turn restirictions, 22
invalid
> >>>> r2946 with activated mergeroads : 264 (valid) turn restirictions, 22
> >>>> invalid
> >>>> r2946 with patch and --x-no-mergeroads: 264 (valid) turn
restirictions,
> >>>> 22 invalid
> >>>> r2946 with patch and activated mergeroads : *223* (valid) turn
> >>>> restirictions, *25 *invalid
> >>>>
> >>>> (The invalid turn restrictions are listed in the log. Those are
the ones
> >>>> that prohibit
> >>>> to drive into the wrong end of a oneway road, but GPSMapEdit doesn't
> >>>> care when
> >>>> the turn restriction also forbids to walk into the road)
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you think that this could be okay?
> >>>>
> >>>> Gerd
> >>>>
> >>>> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 22:55:43 +0100
> >>>> From: [email protected]
> >>>> To: [email protected]
> >>>> Subject: [mkgmap-dev] [PATCH] RoadMerger reverses roads
> >>>>
> >>>> Attached patch improves the RoadMerger so that roads are
reversed when
> >>>> it is required to be merged with another road.
> >>>>
> >>>> A small test increased the mergerate by 2% (avg. 17% => 19% road
network
> >>>> reduction).
> >>>>
> >>>> Please check it. The p-road check is not yet implemented.
> >>>> There are also some performance improvements possible which I
will post
> >>>> with the next patch version.
> >>>> Unit tests may fail.
> >>>>
> >>>> WanMil
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Gerd,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi WanMil,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> two points:
> >>>>>> 1) line 517 is obsolete:
> >>>>>> mergePoints.add(end);
> >>>>>> It just blows up the size of the list and processing time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yep.
> >>>>> I've found another important thing: the road merger can merge
many more
> >>>>> ways when it reverses non oneway ways. This should be no problem so
> >>>>> let's do it :-)
> >>>>> I will post another patch.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev
mailing list
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>>http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> >>>> [email protected]
> >>>>http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> >>> [email protected]
> >>>http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> >> [email protected]
> >>http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
