You make an interesting point.
There are certain aspects of the Garmin img file structure mkgmap does
not understand because it hasn't been reverse-engineered but I am more
than certain that the bits we don't understand do not affect labelling
of pois . Certainly the TYP file structure which I understand fully ,
has nothing to do with your POI labelling issues.
mkgmap creates maps of an older Garmin format
If maps created by Garmin show the 'hidden' POIs and mkgmap
generated maps don't then it seems that for some strange reason these
Garmin devices adopt the new format for points but not for lines or
polygons etc - we've not seen any evidence of this when analysing NT
maps (new format).
I think the latest batch of new devices are similar to the myriad of
watches Garmin produces , where price is determined by the number of
options/tools.
On 07/12/2024 20:10, scott taggart wrote:
On 12/7/2024 11:59 AM, osm wrote:
You're a bit 'confused'
It's not OSM that determines the visibility of types but the Garmin
device itself .
mkgmap creates maps based on osm data and 'feeds' devices with maps.
It's up the each device to accept part or all of the map. So in your
case , much of the data gets ignored and falls on death ears, ie it's
eclectic
Confused and ignorant at this point, for sure!
Now nderstood that OSM just outputs its contents (in .osm format,
correct) to be rendered by mkgmap into a .img file. My central
question is still: "do OSM maps largely work across all garmin
devices, including the newer XT2 and tread, including having basic
text labels"? Assuming "yes" for the moment, where is the secret
sauce in mkgmap that generate universally displayable text labels?
Does the .osm format pass enough "style" info to mkgmap for it to
construct TYP files and POI references that work across most garmin units?
Scott
On 07/12/2024 19:17, scott taggart wrote:
*
Thanks everyone for the input. If I understand correctly, there
seems to be no universal POI types across all devices (when I look
at some of the referenced lists, there seems to be a small bit of
consistency with the 0x01...0x11?) types. However, as I have seen
in practice, some of the newer devices such as XT2/Tread seem to not
even follow these "standards" (the XT2 and Tread definitely do not
display text for the well-known 0x1400 type). In my particular
case, I need (only) one POI type that will always display a big text
label and ideally, no icon (I'm settled for now on 0x1E00 which
seems to work across all devices I care about (until garmin releases
some new device)). At the risk of repeating what I have previously
asked, can anyone explain to me:
*
Assuming there's no consistency across devices, how do the OSM
generated maps work across devices? Do they not? (I'm not an OSM
expert by any means). How the heck does OSM always know a text
label will be displayed on every device for a given POI type?
When OSM maps are generated does the creator specify a device
type so that internal OSM type maps can be used (sorry for my
ignorance of how OSM works). In thinking more about this, does
OSM generate a TYP file that defines custom point types for all
needed icons so they work across all devices? Seems like that is
the only way any of this could work.
*
Even more perplexing, does this mean that garmin must release
different versions of maps for each device class (say a US
topo)? I never buy garmin maps so maybe I have missed this.
When I look online to buy the garmin 100k topo
<https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/127633#requirements>, it seems
it works for all devices.
*
Finally, and I asked this before, is there any mkgmap
capabilities I can get to using the .osm input as opposed to the
mp file format (assuming I generate TYP files)? I ask this
because I want to potentially save myself from trying to dive
very deep into the non-mp file stuff if there's nothing to be
gained.
*
And finally, just to vent here, why in God's name would a
manufacturer ever create such a mess??? Seems like a real
headache even for them, let alone us reverse-engineers ;)
Thanks again for your patience. As you can tell, I am a blind man
stumbling around in a dark room here.
*
On 12/7/2024 8:07 AM, osm wrote:
I agree with Ticker; there is also something else which MAY help:
If your Garmin came with maps its worth checking which points do
show up.
A TYP file may be included into the gmapsupp which will should reveal
some of the types used - Gmaptool can export this supfile
Regards
Nick
On 07/12/2024 15:52, Ticker Berkin wrote:
Hi Scott
There is some consistency across Garmin models I've come across
for a set of
standard POIs that have a (semi-)defined meaning; but I don't know
if Garmin are
breaking this with devices like XT, Tread...
By semi-defined I mean they respond to appropriate 'FIND' searches
and some
devices actually show what considers the POI to be. There are
various lists of
these around the internet and, from a mkgmap distribution,
./examples/styles/default/points shows usage.
Sticking to these can make a reasonably well-featured map that
works on many
devices.
Many POI types don't show at low resolution!
For the POI you've mentioned, I've noted from experimentation:
0x14 No icon. Country. Big font. no subtypes {major country}
0x1e No icon. has name. State {province/region}. no subtypes
I don't think you get any difference in the final map and
behaviour whether the
input is MP or from OSM (osm.pbf, o5m, etc format)
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk > Documentation is a starting point for
help.
Ticker
On Fri, 2024-12-06 at 10:47 -0800, scott taggart wrote:
As I posted here on 2024.12.01, I was having issues with POIs
not displaying
labels for some garmin devices (specifically the XT2 and Tread) when
generating /img files using mp file input to mkgmap. I did some
exploration
and discovered this (maybe well known but not by me):
* Each device model displays POIs differently (i.e., type
0x100 does not
show the same thing). There seems to be no consistency across
models (Felix
echoed this in a follow-up post).
* Each model displays labels for each POI type differently
(some show no
label, others show small vs big text). There seems to be no
consistency
across models.
* I attempted to use the custom "[_point]" feature of the mp
files and mkgmap
but the custom point bitmaps only work for some garmins. Even
then, it didn't
help with my missing [poi] labels.
* Prior to the labels not working on the XT2 and Tread units, I
always used
the 0x1400 POI code type for my labels. With a lot of cross-model
experimentation I discovered a single POI code (0x1E00) will
display large
text on all garmin models I was able to test with (Montana 6XX
and 7XX, XT,
XT2, Tread). I have no idea if this POI code will work with all
garmins that
support custom maps.
Questions:
* Are these issues with each model behaving differently with
respect to POI
types well-known? If so, how are they gotten around by (OSM) map
builders?
How can a single map be built that has POIs and labels that are
consistent
across more than one device. What am I missing?
* How does OSM handle this? I presume that an OSM map
generated for an area
works on all garmin devices? I will admit that I don't know what
the OSM map
limitations are across garmin models. Does the JOSN model allow
the devices
POI maps to be loaded on a per-map basis? If I were to switch to
JOSN model
for mkgmap input, could I get around all the device limitations I
am running
into with the mp file format? Can someone recommend a good
tutorial on
getting up to speed on generating JOSN for simple map input to
mkgmap?
* OSM uses the JOSM model to feed mkgmap. Does that model
allow for more
flexibility and control than the "mp" input file model? I presume
the MP file
format is obsolete.
* Is there any better documentation for the MPO format than the
CGPSMAPPER
pdf file floating around on the internet?
* Can anyone recommend either a different website or people
whom I may
contact for further help with any of this?
Any and all help is appreciated.
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
https://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
