Hi Gerd, I'm sorry the delay to answer, but I came on vacation and had many pending issues waiting for me. Regard this specific issue, your interpretation of the problem of duplication/overlap in the numbering interpolation is correct. In fact the data doesn't make sense and I agree with you that this case is an error in the data.
To prove this, I got the short example sent before and correctly input the numbers eliminating the overlapping as shown below: [image: Imagem inline 3] And then I compiled the map with mkgmap versions 3612 and 3629 (the last one I found) and the numbers were not "missed" this time, proving you theory. *Snapshot taken form MapSource of a map compiled wiht mkgmap r3612* [image: Imagem inline 1] *Snapshot taken form MapSource of a map compiled wiht mkgmap r3629* [image: Imagem inline 2] So I think we can close the case and I have some work do clean the maps of my group. Thanks again for your attention and analysis. Best regards, Alexandre Loss 2015-07-21 9:06 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Loss <[email protected]>: > Hi Gerd and Steve, > > Thanks by your attention. > I'm in vocation now and without access to my computer, so I can't provide > more information if you need till my return in beginning of August. > But I think that the data is correct because in despite the streets have > the same name, they are different road since they aren't connect (there is > a gap / a block between them). > So I believe that the algo couldn't consider the name of street. > But I understand your point of view, since it looks that can have a number > overlapping/shadow of both streets, what would be a logical error. > > Unfortunately, I can make more test these days but as soon I come back I > will. > > Thanks, > > Alexandre > > (Enviado via iPad) > > Em 21/07/2015, às 06:21, Gerd Petermann <[email protected]> > escreveu: > > Hi Alexandre, > > I think the problem here is that you have two ways named "RUA PORTO > ALEGRE", > one with id 2, the other with id 46, and both are in the same city. > So far no problem, but the addr:interpolation ways on those two roads > also produce a bunch of duplicate numbers. > As a result, the new algo decides to ignore them. > Unfortunately, the log > FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberGenerator > e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: keeping duplicate numbers assigned to > different roads in cluster RUA PORTO ALEGRE 2(0) 2(1) > FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberGenerator > e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: keeping duplicate numbers assigned to > different roads in cluster RUA PORTO ALEGRE 3(0) 3(1) > FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl > e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13 > 800..2, step=2 generated even interpolated number(s) for id=2, RUA PORTO > ALEGRE > FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl > e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14 > 801..3, step=2 generated odd interpolated number(s) for id=2, RUA PORTO > ALEGRE > FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl > e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65 > 419..205, step=2 generated odd interpolated number(s) for id=46, RUA PORTO > ALEGRE > FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl > e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/65 > 203..3, step=2 generated odd interpolated number(s) for id=46, RUA PORTO > ALEGRE > FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl > e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/66 > 418..204, step=2 generated even interpolated number(s) for id=46, RUA PORTO > ALEGRE > FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberIvl > e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/66 > 202..2, step=2 generated even interpolated number(s) for id=46, RUA PORTO > ALEGRE > FEIN: uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.housenumber.HousenumberGenerator > e:\testdata\03205200-vila_velha.osm: found problems with interpolated > numbers from addr:interpolations ways for roads with name RUA PORTO ALEGRE > > > is not very clear about the reason and the final action, but I think the > data is not okay and the algo is correct > to ignore it. > > What do you think? > Gerd > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:28:04 -0300 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] Numbering loss in the version which came after > the r3602 > > Hi Andrzej, > > Ok, thank you for your time and analyses. > Lets wait for Gerd. > > regards, > Alexandre > > > 2015-06-17 13:13 GMT-03:00 Andrzej Popowski <[email protected]>: > > Hi Alexandre, > > I confirm, that there is no address on your map with current mkgmap. Data > seems to be OK, so lets wait for Gerd opinion. > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrzej > _______________________________________________ > 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
