[mkgmap-dev] Small holes in boundary coverageFrom GerdP gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com on Fri Apr 6 10:25:53 BST 2012
Hi WanMil, I've tried again. Reg. the performance improvements I see only small differences, I guess that's because I use splitter with default overlap of 2000. I assume the greater the overlap the greater is the improvement of the UnusedElementsRemoverHook ? reg. different result: I've uploaded the tile (sorry, it is very big): http://files.mkgmap.org.uk/download/65/63240022.osm.pbf I can reproduce the problem with trunk (r2263) (and my identical_output.patch) using the following parms: java -Xmx1600m -Xms1600m -jar mkgmap.jar --remove-short-arcs --route --preserve-element-order 63240022.osm.pbf If I comment the call of UnusedElementsRemoverHook I get a different output file. I hope you can reproduce it? Gerd WanMil wrote > >> >> Please, can you review if the UnusedElementsRemoverHook is still useful? >> With my test data, it is slowing down mkgmap a little bit and I also see >> a different result for one tile in the UK when I disable it. >> >> Gerd >> > > Gerd, > > I cannot reproduce that the UnusedElementsRemoverHook does not improve > the speed of mkgmap. Can you please try again? > > If you see a different result it should be analysed. So please post your > tile and your mkgmap parameters and all the details so that I can check > that. > > WanMil > _______________________________________________ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > mkgmap-dev at .org > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev > -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Small-holes-in-boundary-coverage-tp5569161p5622393.html Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
- Previous message: [mkgmap-dev] Small holes in boundary coverage
- Next message: [mkgmap-dev] Small holes in boundary coverage
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list