On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 02:06:11AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
Well then add a note to the options file, that while it is nicer and
faster on the GPS to draw (if level 21 and 19 are included) - however
it adds up 15% to filesize of gmapsupp.img (though I don't get how you
get 15% when I get
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 02:06:11AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
Maybe a finer seperation would be needed using service=* tag.
I was not aware of the service=drive-through tag, which is documented at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service
I would suggest something like this:
Hi Felix,
More bad news: After the additional splitting, my gmapsupp.img grew to
94 MB. Without the added levels and the splitting, it would be about
80 MB. The baseline (without the patch and splitting), it would be
about 82 MB. I think that the growth is unacceptable.
I accidentally
On 26.03.2011 08:12, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 02:06:11AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
Well then add a note to the options file, that while it is nicer and
faster on the GPS to draw (if level 21 and 19 are included) - however
it adds up 15% to filesize of gmapsupp.img
Actually, we do have a mean: if there are multiple parallel tracks (each
drawn as a separate way with railway=*), it is a major railway. It
should be doable to merge adjacent ways at lower resolutions and sum the
weights of the ways, to decide what to draw. A style file extension
could be
On 26/03/2011 15:50, Johann Gail wrote:
Actually, we do have a mean: if there are multiple parallel tracks (each
drawn as a separate way with railway=*), it is a major railway. It
should be doable to merge adjacent ways at lower resolutions and sum the
weights of the ways, to decide what to
On 26.03.2011 13:11, Charlie Ferrero wrote:
On 26/03/2011 15:50, Johann Gail wrote:
Actually, we do have a mean: if there are multiple parallel tracks (each
drawn as a separate way with railway=*), it is a major railway. It
should be doable to merge adjacent ways at lower resolutions and sum
On 25.03.2011 16:45, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 09:16:27AM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
Is the resolution a mkgmap-only entity, which is mapped to zoom
layers known as levels in the IMG file? If that is the case,
wouldn't this change introduce two more zoom layers to the
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 05:09:19PM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
I did not test adding the levels 19 and 21 yet.
Bad news: Adding just one level would blow up some limit. My largest
tile .img is about 20 megabytes. Time to split my tiles again, I guess.
you may lower secondary_link and
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 07:11:05PM +0200, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
I did not test adding the levels 19 and 21 yet.
Bad news: Adding just one level would blow up some limit. My largest
tile .img is about 20 megabytes. Time to split my tiles again, I guess.
More bad news: After the additional
Marko Mäkelä marko.mak...@iki.fi writes:
Actually, we do have a mean: if there are multiple parallel tracks (each
drawn as a separate way with railway=*), it is a major railway. It
should be doable to merge adjacent ways at lower resolutions and sum the
weights of the ways, to decide what
On 25.03.2011 22:01, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 07:11:05PM +0200, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
I did not test adding the levels 19 and 21 yet.
Bad news: Adding just one level would blow up some limit. My largest
tile .img is about 20 megabytes. Time to split my tiles again, I guess.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 11:34:30PM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
Could this patch be included?
I really think maps in Western Europe (where most mkgmap users are) look
much better on a) old GPS like etrex b) street units like Nuvi 255W or
c) Mapsource/Basecamp/Qlandkarte GT.
About 2 month ago the
On 10.03.2011 12:18, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 11:34:30PM +0100, Felix Hartmann wrote:
Could this patch be included?
I really think maps in Western Europe (where most mkgmap users are) look
much better on a) old GPS like etrex b) street units like Nuvi 255W or
c)
Could this patch be included?
I really think maps in Western Europe (where most mkgmap users are) look
much better on a) old GPS like etrex b) street units like Nuvi 255W or
c) Mapsource/Basecamp/Qlandkarte GT.
About 2 month ago the resolutions for POI got lowered to sensible
defaults (they
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:45:52PM +0100, Minko wrote:
Negative consequence is that on Mapsource most of the forest disappears
too soon, when zooming out.
How hard would it be to merge nearby polygons on wider zoom levels?
Marko
___
mkgmap-dev
On 02.03.2011 13:53, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:45:52PM +0100, Minko wrote:
Negative consequence is that on Mapsource most of the forest disappears
too soon, when zooming out.
How hard would it be to merge nearby polygons on wider zoom levels?
It would not work I think.
Am 02.03.2011 14:03, schrieb Felix Hartmann:
On 02.03.2011 13:53, Marko Mäkelä wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 01:45:52PM +0100, Minko wrote:
Negative consequence is that on Mapsource most of the forest disappears
too soon, when zooming out.
How hard would it be to merge nearby polygons on
18 matches
Mail list logo
