<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Hi Lambertus,<br><br>and I guess that even after this optimization you will<br>see a factor 3 or higher between the largest tile and the smallest.<br>Can you confirm that?<br><br>Gerd<br><br><div>> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 15:32:38 +0200<br>> From: osm@na1400.info<br>> To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] mkgmap ToDo list<br>> <br>> Num-tiles=x would indeed be better for this specific need.<br>> <br>> It is my experience that it regularly takes multiple calls to Splitter <br>> to get 2+ sub-tiles when you reduce the max-nodes by 100k for each <br>> sub-split attempt. This is what I currently do to get an optimum in <br>> tile-size vs total number of tiles.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> On 29/04/2014 15:09, Gerd Petermann wrote:<br>> > Hi Lambertus,<br>> ><br>> > that sounds like a possible change in splitter:<br>> > Instead of specifying max-nodes you may specify --num-tiles=x<br>> > and splitter will try to find a split that produces excactly x tiles<br>> > which are not too narrow and have a node number which is not<br>> > too far from the average (but still aligned to a multiple of map units<br>> > as now).<br>> > So, for your script that means you don't have to find the max-nodes<br>> > value.<br>> ><br>> > I'll think about this again...<br>> ><br>> > Gerd<br>> ><br>> > > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:59:36 +0200<br>> > > From: osm@na1400.info<br>> > > To: mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> > > Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] mkgmap ToDo list<br>> > ><br>> > > While this possibly can be solved in Splitter or Mkgmap, it could also<br>> > > be solved by your build-script when you add a maximum tile size check<br>> > > and re-split (with a lower number of max-nodes) until you get two or<br>> > > more sub-tiles. Granted, this adds complexity to the script but it works<br>> > > well for me.<br>> > ><br>> > > On 25/04/2014 21:54, Henning Scholland wrote:<br>> > > > Hi Gerd,<br>> > > ><br>> > > > I would like to have img-tiles which have globally nearly the same<br>> > > > filesize, so that they use the space of devices like eTrex 10.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > With my actual map I use globally the same value for max-nodes. But the<br>> > > > size of the img-tiles differ more then factor 2. Eg. a tile in Germany<br>> > > > is between 2 and 5 mb where a tile in China is about 10 mb. If I remove<br>> > > > details, this difference will increase, because in Germany more objects<br>> > > > will be removed from the img-tile then in China.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > Henning<br>> > > ><br>> > > > _______________________________________________<br>> > > > mkgmap-dev mailing list<br>> > > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> > > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev<br>> > ><br>> > > _______________________________________________<br>> > > mkgmap-dev mailing list<br>> > > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> > > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > mkgmap-dev mailing list<br>> > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev<br>> ><br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> mkgmap-dev mailing list<br>> mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk<br>> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev<br></div> </div></body>
</html>