Hi Alexandre, okay, good to hear that. I decided to make mkgmap tests regarding addr:interpolation ways rather strict because in some areas (mostly Canada) these errors appear extremely often, caused by bad imports. Seems to be a generel problem of OSM generators ;-)
Gerd Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:40:40 -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 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: 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 Snapshot taken form MapSource of a map compiled wiht mkgmap r3629 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
_______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
