Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker,
thank you for help and sorry, i don´t remember that points include the access file. I move the is_in command to the line file.
Now r4450 says
Error in style: Error: (lines:8): Expecting ), instead saw landuse
I don´t understand that. Is that a mistake in my is_in command?
highway=* & rad!=ja & laufen!=ja & tunnel!=* & bridge!=* & istdrin!=n & is_in(landuse,cemetery,all)=true {set istdrin=j}
Greets
Arndt
Ticker Berkin <
rwb-mkg...@jagit.co.uk> hat am 13. Februar 2020 um 10:26 geschrieben:
Hi Arndt
you have an include 'inc/access' in styles_base/points and
styles_gravel/points
which gives the error about unsupported options.
The crash is related: because the calls are textually identical, the
optimiser semi-tries to share them between points and lines processing,
it initializes one instance only, but later the correct ones are called
for the 2 contexts. I introduced this assertion error in the last
update to catch strange things like this happening. Before it would
have quietly returned "false"
Ticker
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 06:37 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Ticker,
mkgmap tell me:
6:33:39,37 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik
Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all'
of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are:
[in, in_or_on, on]
Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all'
of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are:
[in, in_or_on, on]
Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all'
of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are:
[in, in_or_on, on]
Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all'
of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are:
[in, in_or_on, on]
Could not open style
If i move the "is_in" command to the line file, mkgmap say:
6:30:43,78 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik
java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance
at
uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInFun
ction.java:119)
at
uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(CachedFu
nction.java:61)
at
uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33)
...
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker, ah, yes, did not see the override. There is another caching mechanism in RuleSet.resolveType(int cacheId, Element el, TypeResult result) which might kick in. Not sure if this is relevant but you should be aware of it. Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2020 11:16 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd I overrode getCacheTag() to fix this aspect, and you overrode toString() for something relating to the common sub-expressions; in both cases including the 'kind' and all the parameters. Yesterday, experimenting, I found it was consistent about create 2 instances, augmenting the same one twice and then using just that one for the actual work, but this was when the calls were in the same section. So, sometime I should investigate what happen when there valid identical calls in 2 sections. Ticker On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 09:53 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Hi Ticker, > > I think CachedFunction can't be used without changes. It uses > getName() which just returns "is_in" (no parameters). > > Gerd > > > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag > von Ticker Berkin > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2020 10:26 > An: Development list for mkgmap > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function > > Hi Arndt > > you have an include 'inc/access' in styles_base/points and > styles_gravel/points > > which gives the error about unsupported options. > > The crash is related: because the calls are textually identical, the > optimiser semi-tries to share them between points and lines > processing, > it initializes one instance only, but later the correct ones are > called > for the 2 contexts. I introduced this assertion error in the last > update to catch strange things like this happening. Before it would > have quietly returned "false" > > Ticker > > > On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 06:37 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote: > > Hi Ticker, > > > > mkgmap tell me: > > > > 6:33:39,37 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik > > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter > > 'all' > > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid > > are: > > [in, in_or_on, on] > > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter > > 'all' > > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid > > are: > > [in, in_or_on, on] > > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter > > 'all' > > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid > > are: > > [in, in_or_on, on] > > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter > > 'all' > > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid > > are: > > [in, in_or_on, on] > > Could not open style > > > > > > If i move the "is_in" command to the line file, mkgmap say: > > > > 6:30:43,78 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik > > java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance > > at > > uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInF > > un > > ction.java:119) > > at > > uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(Cached > > Fu > > nction.java:61) > > at > > uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) > ... > > ___ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker, I think CachedFunction can't be used without changes. It uses getName() which just returns "is_in" (no parameters). Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2020 10:26 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Arndt you have an include 'inc/access' in styles_base/points and styles_gravel/points which gives the error about unsupported options. The crash is related: because the calls are textually identical, the optimiser semi-tries to share them between points and lines processing, it initializes one instance only, but later the correct ones are called for the 2 contexts. I introduced this assertion error in the last update to catch strange things like this happening. Before it would have quietly returned "false" Ticker On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 06:37 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote: > Hi Ticker, > > mkgmap tell me: > > 6:33:39,37 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: > [in, in_or_on, on] > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: > [in, in_or_on, on] > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: > [in, in_or_on, on] > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: > [in, in_or_on, on] > Could not open style > > > If i move the "is_in" command to the line file, mkgmap say: > > 6:30:43,78 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik > java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance > at > uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInFun > ction.java:119) > at > uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(CachedFu > nction.java:61) > at > uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) ... ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Arndt you have an include 'inc/access' in styles_base/points and styles_gravel/points which gives the error about unsupported options. The crash is related: because the calls are textually identical, the optimiser semi-tries to share them between points and lines processing, it initializes one instance only, but later the correct ones are called for the 2 contexts. I introduced this assertion error in the last update to catch strange things like this happening. Before it would have quietly returned "false" Ticker On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 06:37 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote: > Hi Ticker, > > mkgmap tell me: > > 6:33:39,37 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: > [in, in_or_on, on] > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: > [in, in_or_on, on] > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: > [in, in_or_on, on] > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' > of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: > [in, in_or_on, on] > Could not open style > > > If i move the "is_in" command to the line file, mkgmap say: > > 6:30:43,78 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik > java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance > at > uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInFun > ction.java:119) > at > uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(CachedFu > nction.java:61) > at > uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) ... ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker, mkgmap tell me: 6:33:39,37 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported for this style section, valid are: [in, in_or_on, on] Could not open style If i move the "is_in" command to the line file, mkgmap say: 6:30:43,78 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4446 Speiche_Fabrik java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInFunction.java:119) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(CachedFunction.java:61) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.AbstractOp.eval(AbstractOp.java:123) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.AndOp.eval(AndOp.java:45) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.AndOp.eval(AndOp.java:45) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.ActionRule.resolveType(ActionRule.java:72) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.RuleSet.resolveType(RuleSet.java:97) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.StyledConverter.convertWay(StyledConverter.java:462) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.ElementSaver.convert(ElementSaver.java:243) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.OsmMapDataSource.load(OsmMapDataSource.java:161) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.MapMaker.loadFromFile(MapMaker.java:154) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.MapMaker.makeMap(MapMaker.java:54) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.Main$1.call(Main.java:291) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.Main$1.call(Main.java:287) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:264) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1128) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:628) at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:834) java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInFunction.java:119) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(CachedFunction.java:61) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.AbstractOp.eval(AbstractOp.java:123) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.AndOp.eval(AndOp.java:45) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.AndOp.eval(AndOp.java:45) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.ActionRule.resolveType(ActionRule.java:72) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.RuleSet.resolveType(RuleSet.java:97) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.StyledConverter.convertWay(StyledConverter.java:462) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.ElementSaver.convert(ElementSaver.java:243) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.OsmMapDataSource.load(OsmMapDataSource.java:161) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.MapMaker.loadFromFile(MapMaker.java:154) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.MapMaker.makeMap(MapMaker.java:54) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.Main$1.call(Main.java:291) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.main.Main$1.call(Main.java:287) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:264) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1128) at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:628) at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:834) java.lang.AssertionError: invoked the non-augmented instance at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.IsInFunction.calcImpl(IsInFunction.java:119) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.function.CachedFunction.value(CachedFunction.java:61) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.EqualsOp.eval(EqualsOp.java:33) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.AbstractOp.eval(AbstractOp.java:123) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.AndOp.eval(AndOp.java:45) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.eval.AndOp.eval(AndOp.java:45) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.ActionRule.resolveType(ActionRule.java:72) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.RuleSet.resolveType(RuleSet.java:97) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.osmstyle.StyledConverter.convertWay(StyledConverter.java:462) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.ElementSaver.convert(ElementSaver.java:243) at uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.OsmMapDataSource.load(OsmMapDataSource.java:161) at
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Arndt
Can you try http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/download/mkgmap-is-in-r4446.zip
If the method parameter isn't understood, it lists the acceptable
method parameters for the context (points/lines/polygons).
I couldn't reproduce the problem with the previous version I had, and I
couldn't see how the include should have effected anything.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 19:23 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
> Hi Ticker,
>
> i include "access" from lines. It´s one of the first lines.
> Move the is_in command to the line file, mkgmap runs without errors.
> But is_in doesn´t work.
> With r-4428 is the result OK.
>
> (highway~'motorway|trunk|primary|secondary|tertiary|unclassified|mino
> r|residential|living_street|cycleway|steps') {set isin=n}
> highway=* & rad!=ja & laufen!=ja & tunnel!=* & bridge!=* & isin!=n &
> is_in(landuse,cemetery,all)=true {set isin=j}
> ...
> ...
> isin=j {set rad=nein}
> isin=j {set highway=tobadforbike}
>
> Greets
> Arndt
>
> P.S.
> My complete style is here:
> https://speichenkarte.de/ "Steuerdateien;
>
>
> > Ticker Berkin < rwb-mkg...@jagit.co.uk> hat am 11. Februar 2020 um
> > 16:01 geschrieben:
> >
> >
> > Hi Arndt
> >
> > Are you including inc/access from points?
> >
> > Ticker
> >
> > On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 13:54 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
> > > Hi Ticker,
> > >
> > > i get this:
> > >
> > > 13:40:20,54 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4443 Speiche_Fabrik
> > > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter
> > > 'all'
> > > of function is_in is not supported
> > >
> > > Reason is, the is_in command is in the access-file :)
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > Arndt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ticker Berkin < rwb-mkg...@jagit.co.uk> hat am 11. Februar 2020
> > > > um
> > > > 13:02 geschrieben:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > I've started some initial documentation for this that will go
> > > > into
> > > > the
> > > > Style Manual.
> > > >
> > > > The attached patch lists the options, but you might find it a
> > > > bit
> > > > unreadable.
> > > >
> > > > With the next auto-build after this is applied, the updated
> > > > manual
> > > > appear in the branches download zip. @gerd: is this how it
> > > > happens?
> > > >
> > > > But the simple answer to your question is, for a rule in
> > > > "lines" or
> > > > "polygons", what you have written will still work.
> > > >
> > > > Ticker
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 12:32 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
> > > > > Hi Gerd,
> > > > >
> > > > > is_in(landuse,residential,all)=true
> > > > >
> > > > > how do you write that now?
> > > > >
> > > > > Greets
> > > > > Arndt
> > > > >
> > > > > > Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> hat am
> > > > > > 10.
> > > > > > Februar 2020 um 14:14 geschrieben:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap
> > > > > >
> > > > > > =4442
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @Ticker:
> > > > > > I assume you are working on an alternative implementation
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > methods in IsInUtil?
> > > > > > If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication
> > > > > > introduced
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the last patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gerd
> > > > > > ___
> > > > > > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > > > > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> > > > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> > > > > ___
> > > > > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > > > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> > > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev_
> > > > >
> > > > > __
> > > > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> > > ___
> > > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> > ___
> > mkgmap-dev mailing list
> > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> ___
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker,
i include "access" from lines. It´s one of the first lines.
Move the is_in command to the line file, mkgmap runs without errors. But is_in doesn´t work.
With r-4428 is the result OK.
(highway~'motorway|trunk|primary|secondary|tertiary|unclassified|minor|residential|living_street|cycleway|steps') {set isin=n}
highway=* & rad!=ja & laufen!=ja & tunnel!=* & bridge!=* & isin!=n & is_in(landuse,cemetery,all)=true {set isin=j}
...
...
isin=j {set rad=nein}
isin=j {set highway=tobadforbike}
Greets
Arndt
P.S.
My complete style is here:
https://speichenkarte.de/ "Steuerdateien"
Ticker Berkin <
rwb-mkg...@jagit.co.uk> hat am 11. Februar 2020 um 16:01 geschrieben:
Hi Arndt
Are you including inc/access from points?
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 13:54 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Ticker,
i get this:
13:40:20,54 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4443 Speiche_Fabrik
Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all'
of function is_in is not supported
Reason is, the is_in command is in the access-file :)
Thank you
Arndt
Ticker Berkin <
rwb-mkg...@jagit.co.uk> hat am 11. Februar 2020 um
13:02 geschrieben:
Hi
I've started some initial documentation for this that will go into
the
Style Manual.
The attached patch lists the options, but you might find it a bit
unreadable.
With the next auto-build after this is applied, the updated manual
appear in the branches download zip. @gerd: is this how it happens?
But the simple answer to your question is, for a rule in "lines" or
"polygons", what you have written will still work.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 12:32 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote:
Hi Gerd,
is_in(landuse,residential,all)=true
how do you write that now?
Greets
Arndt
Gerd Petermann <
gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> hat am 10.
Februar 2020 um 14:14 geschrieben:
Hi all,
see
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap
=4442
@Ticker:
I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of
the
methods in IsInUtil?
If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced
with
the last patch.
Gerd
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev_
__
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
___
mkgmap-dev mailing list
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Arndt Are you including inc/access from points? Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 13:54 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote: > Hi Ticker, > > i get this: > > 13:40:20,54 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4443 Speiche_Fabrik > Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' > of function is_in is not supported > > Reason is, the is_in command is in the access-file :) > > Thank you > > Arndt > > > > > Ticker Berkin < rwb-mkg...@jagit.co.uk> hat am 11. Februar 2020 um > > 13:02 geschrieben: > > > > > > Hi > > > > I've started some initial documentation for this that will go into > > the > > Style Manual. > > > > The attached patch lists the options, but you might find it a bit > > unreadable. > > > > With the next auto-build after this is applied, the updated manual > > appear in the branches download zip. @gerd: is this how it happens? > > > > But the simple answer to your question is, for a rule in "lines" or > > "polygons", what you have written will still work. > > > > Ticker > > > > On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 12:32 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote: > > > Hi Gerd, > > > > > > is_in(landuse,residential,all)=true > > > > > > how do you write that now? > > > > > > Greets > > > Arndt > > > > > > > Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> hat am 10. > > > > Februar 2020 um 14:14 geschrieben: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > see > > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap > > > > =4442 > > > > > > > > @Ticker: > > > > I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of > > > > the > > > > methods in IsInUtil? > > > > If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced > > > > with > > > > the last patch. > > > > > > > > Gerd > > > > ___ > > > > mkgmap-dev mailing list > > > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > > > ___ > > > mkgmap-dev mailing list > > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev_ > > > __ > > mkgmap-dev mailing list > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > ___ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker, i get this: 13:40:20,54 - mkgmap .\tools\mkgmap-is-in-r4443 Speiche_Fabrik Error in style: Error: (inc/access:73): Error: Third parameter 'all' of function is_in is not supported Reason is, the is_in command is in the access-file :) Thank you Arndt Ticker Berkin < rwb-mkg...@jagit.co.uk> hat am 11. Februar 2020 um 13:02 geschrieben: Hi I've started some initial documentation for this that will go into the Style Manual. The attached patch lists the options, but you might find it a bit unreadable. With the next auto-build after this is applied, the updated manual appear in the branches download zip. @gerd: is this how it happens? But the simple answer to your question is, for a rule in "lines" or "polygons", what you have written will still work. Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 12:32 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote: Hi Gerd, is_in(landuse,residential,all)=true how do you write that now? Greets Arndt Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> hat am 10. Februar 2020 um 14:14 geschrieben: Hi all, see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap =4442 @Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch. Gerd ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi I've started some initial documentation for this that will go into the Style Manual. The attached patch lists the options, but you might find it a bit unreadable. With the next auto-build after this is applied, the updated manual appear in the branches download zip. @gerd: is this how it happens? But the simple answer to your question is, for a rule in "lines" or "polygons", what you have written will still work. Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 12:32 +0100, Arndt Röhrig wrote: > Hi Gerd, > > is_in(landuse,residential,all)=true > > how do you write that now? > > Greets > Arndt > > > Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> hat am 10. > > Februar 2020 um 14:14 geschrieben: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap > > =4442 > > > > @Ticker: > > I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the > > methods in IsInUtil? > > If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with > > the last patch. > > > > Gerd > > ___ > > mkgmap-dev mailing list > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > ___ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-devIndex: doc/styles/rules.txt === --- doc/styles/rules.txt (revision 4443) +++ doc/styles/rules.txt (working copy) @@ -282,6 +282,23 @@ Retrieves the id of the OSM element. This can be useful for style debugging purposes. Note that due to internal changes like merging, cutting etc. some element ids are changed and some have a faked id > 4611686018427387904. +|is_in(tag,value,method) | x | x | | ++true+ if the element is in polygon(s) having the specified +tag+=+value+ according to the +method+, +false+ otherwise. +The methods available depend to the Style section: +"points": + +in+ - the Node is within a polygon. + +in_or_on+ - it is within or on the edge. + +on+ - it is on the edge. +"lines": + +all+ - part of the Way is within the polygon(s), none is outside; it might touch an edge. + +all_in_or_on+ - none is outside. This is useful for the negative - is_in(...,all_in_or_on)=false - for processing a line that is outside the polgon(s). + +on+ - it runs along the edge. + +any+ - part is within. + +any_in_or_on+ - part is within or in the edge. +"polygons": + +all+ - all of the closed Way is within the polygon(s). + +any" - some is within. + | The following rule matches for all service ways longer than 50m. ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
OK - If we merge so that, for a node on a shared edge, is_in(...,on) is
false, then is_in(...,in) should be true, so must merge for this as
well.
Ticker
PS: please can you commit my previous patch so that I can do the next
stages
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 10:16 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi Ticker,
>
> "but this isn't necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON"
> Why not for IN?
>
> Gerd
>
>
> Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag
> von Ticker Berkin
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 11:07
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
>
> Hi Gerd
>
> Case 1 looks like 2 independent polygons that happen to be touching.
> Before Wood2 is planted, Tree1 is on the edge of Wood1. Should
> mapping
> Wood2 change this state? - I don't know. If these get merged anyway
> to
> handle mp-cutting then we have forced the answer - it will no longer
> be
> ON.
>
> Yes to the rest. POINT ON test should invoke merging, but this isn't
> necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON
>
> Ticker
>
>
> On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 09:43 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > Hi Ticker,
> >
> > I've attached a sample file. Assume point rule
> > natural=tree & isin(landuse,forest,ON)=true {...}
> >
> > For me, tree1 is not ON, but IN, so result should be false
> > ON would be okay for tree2 and tree4
> > The node tree3 is obbiously IN but if multipolygon cutting devides
> > the mp exactly on the line it would be on two boundaries unless we
> > merge them again for the test.
> >
> > Reg. performance it probably doesn't matter much, these cases are
> > rare and the point-in-polygon test is rather fast compared to the
> > line-in-polygon test.
> >
> > Gerd
> >
> >
> > ____
> > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag
> > von Ticker Berkin
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 10:05
> > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
> >
> > Hi Gerd
> >
> > It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and
> > POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon
> > processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For
> > overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm
> > not
> > sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect
> > to
> > the edges of one polygon that are within the other.
> >
> > I've just seen your next posting.
> >
> > For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON
> > query.
> >
> > So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the
> > OSM
> > defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore
> > the
> > issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an
> > arbitr
> > ary decision anyway.
> >
> > Ticker
> >
> > On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > > Hi Ticker,
> > >
> > > my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the
> > > point
> > > is
> > > on the boundary, not in or out.
> > > With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before
> > > we
> > > test, so I tried to do something similar with points.
> > >
> > > Gerd
> > >
> > >
> > > Von: mkgmap-dev im
> > > Auftrag
> > > von Ticker Berkin
> > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24
> > > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
> > >
> > > Hi Gerd
> > >
> > > Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd
> > > say
> > > that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one,
> > > regardless
> > > of being IN the other.
> > >
> > > Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing
> > > IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around.
> > > I'll
> > > also start some documentation for the Style Manual.
> > >
> > > Ticker
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > > > Hi Ticker,
> > > >
> > > > reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a
> > > > point
> > > > is inside one polygon and on boundary of anoth
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd, is_in(landuse,residential,all)=true how do you write that now? Greets Arndt Gerd Petermann < gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> hat am 10. Februar 2020 um 14:14 geschrieben: Hi all, see http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap=4442 @Ticker: I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the methods in IsInUtil? If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with the last patch. Gerd ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker,
"but this isn't necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON"
Why not for IN?
Gerd
Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker
Berkin
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 11:07
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
Case 1 looks like 2 independent polygons that happen to be touching.
Before Wood2 is planted, Tree1 is on the edge of Wood1. Should mapping
Wood2 change this state? - I don't know. If these get merged anyway to
handle mp-cutting then we have forced the answer - it will no longer be
ON.
Yes to the rest. POINT ON test should invoke merging, but this isn't
necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 09:43 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi Ticker,
>
> I've attached a sample file. Assume point rule
> natural=tree & isin(landuse,forest,ON)=true {...}
>
> For me, tree1 is not ON, but IN, so result should be false
> ON would be okay for tree2 and tree4
> The node tree3 is obbiously IN but if multipolygon cutting devides
> the mp exactly on the line it would be on two boundaries unless we
> merge them again for the test.
>
> Reg. performance it probably doesn't matter much, these cases are
> rare and the point-in-polygon test is rather fast compared to the
> line-in-polygon test.
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
> Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag
> von Ticker Berkin
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 10:05
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
>
> Hi Gerd
>
> It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and
> POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon
> processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For
> overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm not
> sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect to
> the edges of one polygon that are within the other.
>
> I've just seen your next posting.
>
> For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON query.
>
> So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the
> OSM
> defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore
> the
> issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an
> arbitr
> ary decision anyway.
>
> Ticker
>
> On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > Hi Ticker,
> >
> > my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point
> > is
> > on the boundary, not in or out.
> > With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we
> > test, so I tried to do something similar with points.
> >
> > Gerd
> >
> > ____
> > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag
> > von Ticker Berkin
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24
> > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
> >
> > Hi Gerd
> >
> > Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd
> > say
> > that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one,
> > regardless
> > of being IN the other.
> >
> > Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing
> > IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around.
> > I'll
> > also start some documentation for the Style Manual.
> >
> > Ticker
> >
> > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > > Hi Ticker,
> > >
> > > reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a
> > > point
> > > is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not
> > > happen
> > > with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you
> > > want
> > > to get.
> > > reg. isComplete():
> > > This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus
> > > the
> > > geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal
> > > input.
> > > I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet
> > > happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding
> > > nodes at the tile border.
> > >
> > > Gerd
> > >
> > >
> > > Von: mkgmap-dev im
> > > Auftrag
> > > von Ticker Berkin
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09
> > > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
> >
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
Case 1 looks like 2 independent polygons that happen to be touching.
Before Wood2 is planted, Tree1 is on the edge of Wood1. Should mapping
Wood2 change this state? - I don't know. If these get merged anyway to
handle mp-cutting then we have forced the answer - it will no longer be
ON.
Yes to the rest. POINT ON test should invoke merging, but this isn't
necessary for the IN/IN_OR_ON
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 09:43 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi Ticker,
>
> I've attached a sample file. Assume point rule
> natural=tree & isin(landuse,forest,ON)=true {...}
>
> For me, tree1 is not ON, but IN, so result should be false
> ON would be okay for tree2 and tree4
> The node tree3 is obbiously IN but if multipolygon cutting devides
> the mp exactly on the line it would be on two boundaries unless we
> merge them again for the test.
>
> Reg. performance it probably doesn't matter much, these cases are
> rare and the point-in-polygon test is rather fast compared to the
> line-in-polygon test.
>
> Gerd
>
>
>
> Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag
> von Ticker Berkin
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 10:05
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
>
> Hi Gerd
>
> It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and
> POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon
> processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For
> overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm not
> sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect to
> the edges of one polygon that are within the other.
>
> I've just seen your next posting.
>
> For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON query.
>
> So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the
> OSM
> defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore
> the
> issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an
> arbitr
> ary decision anyway.
>
> Ticker
>
> On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > Hi Ticker,
> >
> > my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point
> > is
> > on the boundary, not in or out.
> > With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we
> > test, so I tried to do something similar with points.
> >
> > Gerd
> >
> > ____________
> > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag
> > von Ticker Berkin
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24
> > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
> >
> > Hi Gerd
> >
> > Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd
> > say
> > that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one,
> > regardless
> > of being IN the other.
> >
> > Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing
> > IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around.
> > I'll
> > also start some documentation for the Style Manual.
> >
> > Ticker
> >
> > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > > Hi Ticker,
> > >
> > > reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a
> > > point
> > > is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not
> > > happen
> > > with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you
> > > want
> > > to get.
> > > reg. isComplete():
> > > This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus
> > > the
> > > geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal
> > > input.
> > > I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet
> > > happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding
> > > nodes at the tile border.
> > >
> > > Gerd
> > >
> > >
> > > Von: mkgmap-dev im
> > > Auftrag
> > > von Ticker Berkin
> > > Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09
> > > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
> > >
> > > Hi Gerd
> > >
> > > I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the
> > > stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for
> > > this
> > > context at the moment. This implementat
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker,
I've attached a sample file. Assume point rule
natural=tree & isin(landuse,forest,ON)=true {...}
For me, tree1 is not ON, but IN, so result should be false
ON would be okay for tree2 and tree4
The node tree3 is obbiously IN but if multipolygon cutting devides the mp
exactly on the line it would be on two boundaries unless we merge them again
for the test.
Reg. performance it probably doesn't matter much, these cases are rare and the
point-in-polygon test is rather fast compared to the line-in-polygon test.
Gerd
Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker
Berkin
Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 10:05
An: Development list for mkgmap
Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and
POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon
processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For
overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm not
sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect to
the edges of one polygon that are within the other.
I've just seen your next posting.
For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON query.
So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the OSM
defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore the
issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an arbitr
ary decision anyway.
Ticker
On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi Ticker,
>
> my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is
> on the boundary, not in or out.
> With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we
> test, so I tried to do something similar with points.
>
> Gerd
>
>
> Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag
> von Ticker Berkin
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
>
> Hi Gerd
>
> Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say
> that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless
> of being IN the other.
>
> Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing
> IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around.
> I'll
> also start some documentation for the Style Manual.
>
> Ticker
>
> On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> > Hi Ticker,
> >
> > reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point
> > is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen
> > with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want
> > to get.
> > reg. isComplete():
> > This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus
> > the
> > geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal
> > input.
> > I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet
> > happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding
> > nodes at the tile border.
> >
> > Gerd
> >
> > ________________
> > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag
> > von Ticker Berkin
> > Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09
> > An: Development list for mkgmap
> > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
> >
> > Hi Gerd
> >
> > I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the
> > stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for
> > this
> > context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in
> > that
> > the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in
> > calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(...,
> > 'on').
> >
> > I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and
> > I'm
> > not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
> >
> > There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
> >
> > It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather
> > than
> > el instanceof.
> >
> > w.isComplete():
> > - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile
> > splitting,
> > or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the
> > tile?
> > - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
> >
> > Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
> >
> > This patch also improves the method error message; listing the
> > possible
> > methods for the cont
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd It's important to handle the polygons as merged for the LINE and POLYGON processing, so that internal splitting by multi-polygon processing doesn't affect the answer relating to ON queries. For overlapping polygons, however, the ON query is ambiguous and I'm not sure how much effort it is worth taking to resolve it with respect to the edges of one polygon that are within the other. I've just seen your next posting. For POINTs: I agree, much the same as above applies to the ON query. So, we need to decide on the policy for ON queries relating to the OSM defined edges of one polygon within another polygon, or just ignore the issue on the grounds that the situation is unlikely and it is an arbitr ary decision anyway. Ticker On Tue, 2020-02-11 at 08:31 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Hi Ticker, > > my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is > on the boundary, not in or out. > With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we > test, so I tried to do something similar with points. > > Gerd > > > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag > von Ticker Berkin > Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 > An: Development list for mkgmap > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function > > Hi Gerd > > Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say > that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless > of being IN the other. > > Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing > IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. > I'll > also start some documentation for the Style Manual. > > Ticker > > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > > Hi Ticker, > > > > reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point > > is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen > > with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want > > to get. > > reg. isComplete(): > > This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus > > the > > geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal > > input. > > I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet > > happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding > > nodes at the tile border. > > > > Gerd > > > > ____________________ > > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag > > von Ticker Berkin > > Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 > > An: Development list for mkgmap > > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function > > > > Hi Gerd > > > > I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the > > stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for > > this > > context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in > > that > > the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in > > calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., > > 'on'). > > > > I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and > > I'm > > not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions. > > > > There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me: > > > > It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather > > than > > el instanceof. > > > > w.isComplete(): > > - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile > > splitting, > > or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the > > tile? > > - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct. > > > > Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod. > > > > This patch also improves the method error message; listing the > > possible > > methods for the context. > > > > Ticker > > > > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > see > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap=4 > > > 44 > > > 2 > > > > > > @Ticker: > > > I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the > > > methods in IsInUtil? > > > If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced > > > with > > > the last patch. > > > > > > Gerd > > > ___ > > > mkgmap-dev mailing list > > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > ___ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker, thinking again about it we should probably do this with points: If point is and inside of any polygon but on boundary of more than one polygon, merge those and check if it is inside the merged area. Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Gerd Petermann Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:31 An: Ticker Berkin; Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Ticker, my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is on the boundary, not in or out. With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we test, so I tried to do something similar with points. Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other. Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual. Ticker On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Hi Ticker, > > reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point > is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen > with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want > to get. > reg. isComplete(): > This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the > geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal > input. > I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet > happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding > nodes at the tile border. > > Gerd > > > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag > von Ticker Berkin > Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 > An: Development list for mkgmap > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function > > Hi Gerd > > I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the > stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this > context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in > that > the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in > calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on'). > > I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm > not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions. > > There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me: > > It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather > than > el instanceof. > > w.isComplete(): > - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, > or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the > tile? > - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct. > > Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod. > > This patch also improves the method error message; listing the > possible > methods for the context. > > Ticker > > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > see > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap=444 > > 2 > > > > @Ticker: > > I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the > > methods in IsInUtil? > > If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with > > the last patch. > > > > Gerd > > ___ > > mkgmap-dev mailing list > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker, my understanding is that is_in(.., 'on') returns true if the point is on the boundary, not in or out. With line and polygon rules we merge overlapping polygons before we test, so I tried to do something similar with points. Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin Gesendet: Dienstag, 11. Februar 2020 09:24 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other. Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual. Ticker On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Hi Ticker, > > reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point > is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen > with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want > to get. > reg. isComplete(): > This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the > geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal > input. > I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet > happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding > nodes at the tile border. > > Gerd > > > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag > von Ticker Berkin > Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 > An: Development list for mkgmap > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function > > Hi Gerd > > I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the > stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this > context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in > that > the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in > calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on'). > > I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm > not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions. > > There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me: > > It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather > than > el instanceof. > > w.isComplete(): > - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, > or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the > tile? > - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct. > > Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod. > > This patch also improves the method error message; listing the > possible > methods for the context. > > Ticker > > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > see > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap=444 > > 2 > > > > @Ticker: > > I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the > > methods in IsInUtil? > > If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with > > the last patch. > > > > Gerd > > ___ > > mkgmap-dev mailing list > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd Yes, overlapping polygons was the case I was thinking about. I'd say that is_in(.., 'on') should be true if ON the edge of one, regardless of being IN the other. Can you commit my last change and then, if you are not changing IsInUtil at the moment, I'd like to move some of the code around. I'll also start some documentation for the Style Manual. Ticker On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 18:48 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Hi Ticker, > > reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point > is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen > with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want > to get. > reg. isComplete(): > This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the > geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal > input. > I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet > happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding > nodes at the tile border. > > Gerd > > > Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag > von Ticker Berkin > Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 > An: Development list for mkgmap > Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function > > Hi Gerd > > I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the > stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this > context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in > that > the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in > calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on'). > > I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm > not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions. > > There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me: > > It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather > than > el instanceof. > > w.isComplete(): > - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, > or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the > tile? > - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct. > > Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod. > > This patch also improves the method error message; listing the > possible > methods for the context. > > Ticker > > On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > see > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap=444 > > 2 > > > > @Ticker: > > I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the > > methods in IsInUtil? > > If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with > > the last patch. > > > > Gerd > > ___ > > mkgmap-dev mailing list > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Ticker, reg. POINT is_in(..., 'on') : You think about the case that a point is inside one polygon and on boundary of another? Should not happen with correct OSM data but the question is also what result you want to get. reg. isComplete(): This is about input data where not all coords are known and thus the geometry of the way is undefined. Should never happen with normal input. I am not sure but I think splitting at tile borders did not yet happen with the polygons, only the preparation is done by adding nodes at the tile border. Gerd Von: mkgmap-dev im Auftrag von Ticker Berkin Gesendet: Montag, 10. Februar 2020 18:09 An: Development list for mkgmap Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function Hi Gerd I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on'). I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions. There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me: It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than el instanceof. w.isComplete(): - Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting, or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile? - The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct. Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod. This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible methods for the context. Ticker On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +, Gerd Petermann wrote: > Hi all, > > see > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap=4442 > > @Ticker: > I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the > methods in IsInUtil? > If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with > the last patch. > > Gerd > ___ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev ___ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Re: [mkgmap-dev] More method options for is_in function
Hi Gerd
I've re-implemented the POINT test within IsInFunction, using the
stopping methods etc, which are now coded, but only relevant for this
context at the moment. This implementation has other advantage in that
the method can control the onBoundary condition. Also the logic in
calcInsideness can give the wrong answer for POINT is_in(..., 'on').
I didn't want to change IsInUtil while you are working on it and I'm
not sure yet of the best way to handle the LINE/POLYGON versions.
There are a couple of aspects of these that occur to me:
It would be clearer to test for kind=POINT/LINE/POLYGON etc rather than
el instanceof.
w.isComplete():
- Will this will cause different answers depending on tile splitting,
or is the complete polygon represented; even the bits outside the tile?
- The ANY methods should be processed and will be correct.
Thanks for spotting my error with tstMethod.
This patch also improves the method error message; listing the possible
methods for the context.
Ticker
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 13:14 +, Gerd Petermann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> see
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/websvn/revision.php?repname=mkgmap=4442
>
> @Ticker:
> I assume you are working on an alternative implementation of the
> methods in IsInUtil?
> If not I'd like to remove all the code duplication introduced with
> the last patch.
>
> Gerd
> ___
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-devIndex: src/uk/me/parabola/mkgmap/osmstyle/function/IsInFunction.java
===
--- src/uk/me/parabola/mkgmap/osmstyle/function/IsInFunction.java (revision 4443)
+++ src/uk/me/parabola/mkgmap/osmstyle/function/IsInFunction.java (working copy)
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
import java.util.stream.Collectors;
import uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.Area;
+import uk.me.parabola.imgfmt.app.Coord;
import uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.Element;
import uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.ElementSaver;
import uk.me.parabola.mkgmap.reader.osm.FeatureKind;
@@ -39,27 +40,33 @@
public class IsInFunction extends StyleFunction {
private enum MethodArg {
- // TODO: also maybe aliases, which flags can stop processing, etc
- POINT_IN("in", FeatureKind.POINT),
- POINT_IN_OR_ON("in_or_on", FeatureKind.POINT),
- POINT_ON("on", FeatureKind.POINT),
+ // can stop when: IN ON OUT
+ POINT_IN("in",FeatureKind.POINT,true, false, false),
+ POINT_IN_OR_ON("in_or_on",FeatureKind.POINT,true, true, false),
+ POINT_ON("on",FeatureKind.POINT,false, true, false),
- LINE_SOME_IN_NONE_OUT("all", FeatureKind.POLYLINE),
- LINE_ALL_IN_OR_ON("all_in_or_on", FeatureKind.POLYLINE),
- LINE_ALL_ON("on", FeatureKind.POLYLINE),
- LINE_ANY_IN("any", FeatureKind.POLYLINE),
- LINE_ANY_IN_OR_ON("any_in_or_on", FeatureKind.POLYLINE),
+ LINE_SOME_IN_NONE_OUT("all", FeatureKind.POLYLINE, false, false, true),
+ LINE_ALL_IN_OR_ON("all_in_or_on", FeatureKind.POLYLINE, false, false, true),
+ LINE_ALL_ON("on", FeatureKind.POLYLINE, true, false, true),
+ LINE_ANY_IN("any",FeatureKind.POLYLINE, true, false, false),
+ LINE_ANY_IN_OR_ON("any_in_or_on", FeatureKind.POLYLINE, true, true, false),
- POLYGON_ALL("all", FeatureKind.POLYGON),
- POLYGON_ANY("any", FeatureKind.POLYGON);
+ POLYGON_ALL("all",FeatureKind.POLYGON, false, false, true),
+ POLYGON_ANY("any",FeatureKind.POLYGON, true, false, false);
private final String methodName;
private final FeatureKind kind;
+ private final boolean stopIn;
+ private final boolean stopOn;
+ private final boolean stopOut;
- MethodArg(String methodName, FeatureKind kind) {
+ MethodArg(String methodName, FeatureKind kind, boolean stopIn, boolean stopOn, boolean stopOut) {
this.methodName = methodName;
this.kind = kind;
+ this.stopIn = stopIn;
+ this.stopOn = stopOn;
+ this.stopOut = stopOut;
}
public String toString() {
@@ -70,19 +77,14 @@
return kind;
}
-/*
-following 3 methods are not implement yet and not applicable to current interface of IsInUtil.calcInsideness
-An idea was that it would call setIn/On/Out and logic flags here would know if this was enough to
-determine the answer and stop further processing. probably with flag per IN/ON/OUT for each enum...
-*/
public boolean canStopIn() {
- return false;
+ return stopIn;
}
public boolean canStopOn() {
- return false;
+ return stopOn;
}
public boolean canStopOut() {
- return false;
+ return stopOut;
}
}
@@ -96,10 +98,10 @@
public IsInFunction() {
super(null);
- reqdNumParams = 3; // ??? maybe have something to indicate variable...
+ reqdNumParams = 3;
// 1: polygon tagName
// 2: value for above tag
- // 3: method keyword, eg any, all, on...
