[mkgmap-dev] mergeroads - Handling of mkgmap:carpool

Sat Oct 12 08:23:37 BST 2013

Hi WanMil,

I have no idea what a carpool lane is, so I can't say how it should be handled.
Anyway, reg. the original source code (looking at trunk version 2748) :
1) I think it is very confusing that StyledConverter and RoadDef store 
the bits regarding access with inverted meaning.
StyledConverter has an array called noAccess, so a true should mean "no access",
while RoadDef names the array ACCESS.
2) StyledConverter evaluates access=carpool AND mkgmap:carpool=*.
access=carpool just sets the corresponding bit, while mkgmap:carpool=1
(or =true, =yes)  also set the other access bits.
I don't know if anybody is using this special mkgmap:carpool tag,
I'd prefer to remove it.

Regarding the source mergeroads branch (r2753) :
I think the code tries to evaluate access=carpool in the 
way the trunk version would evaluate mkgmap:carpool.
That is probably not intended.

Gerd

> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 00:27:39 +0200
> From: wmgcnfg at web.de
> To: mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> Subject: [mkgmap-dev] mergeroads - Handling of mkgmap:carpool
> 
> I've changed how the mkgmap:carpool flag is handled. It is no longer 
> handled as common access flag, which means the new actions add/setaccess 
> no longer set the mkgmap:carpool flag.
> There was a problem with such a rule:
> access=yes { setaccess yes }
> It classified the road as carpool which means it can only be used for 
> carpools, emergencies and busses...
> 
> This is the handling now:
> The no carpool bit (0x0008 see RoadDef) is set except mkgmap:carpool is 
> set to yes. (In this case all other mkgmap:xxx access flags are set to 
> no - except emergency and bus which are set to yes).
> 
> @All:
> Is the carpool bit handled correctly?
> 
> How can I test?
> 
> Shall the extra handling (automatic setting of all other mkgmap:xxx 
> access flags) should still be used? I think this could better be done by 
> the style developer? Example:
> carpool=yes { set mkgmap:carpool=yes; setaccess no; set 
> mkgmap:emergency=yes }
> 
> @Programmers:
> Shall we remove the carpool bit from the common access flags and add a 
> separate method setCarpool(boolean) to the RoadDef class like it is done 
> with the throughroute, unpaved etc. flags? I find it quite irritating to 
> have carpool in the common access bits.
> 
> WanMil
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> mkgmap-dev at lists.mkgmap.org.uk
> http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/pipermail/mkgmap-dev/attachments/20131012/d2eaea72/attachment.html 