[mkgmap-dev] Configurable flood blocker

Sat Dec 11 20:00:06 GMT 2010

>>
>> On 05.12.2010 15:48, WanMil wrote:
>>> I committed r1746 to the coast branch.
>>> The floodblocker rules which OSM elements are used to detect land and as
>>> sea areas can now be configured in the special style
>>> resources/styles/floodblocker.
>>> If this style marks a ways as garmin type 0x01 the way is on land
>>> whereas 0x02 is used for sea. Now you can configure your own rules which
>>> tag combinations should be used for the flood blocking algorithm.
>>>
>>> Have fun!
>>> WanMil
>>>
>>>
>> I have used it without problems, however currently all geofabrik
>> extracts I had used (even Australia/Oceania or Lower Saxony) worked on
>> the old version without problems too, while often these extracts caused
>> severe flooding (haven't got any broken extracts saved however)...
>> Also not really sure if my command line makes sense:
>> /generate-sea=--generate-sea=extend-sea-sectors,close-gaps=6000,floodblocker,fbgap=50,fbthres=500,fbratio=5/
>>
>> (until now I have been using:
>> /generate-sea=--generate-sea=polygons,extend-sea-sectors,close-gaps=6000/ )
>>
>> I think it is safe to commit the coast branch to trunk (and maybe
>> include some defaults in the help file, especially I have no clue about
>> a sensible fbration value), I could not note any problems.....
>>
>
> Felix,
>
> thanks for testing!
>
> Yesterday I have committed that the multipolygon sea generation also
> creates land polygons. This should fix a shortcoming which prevented
> some users from using the mulitpolygon sea generation.
>
> What I am interested in at the moment:
> Does the external coastline file loading fit your needs? I am a bit
> concerned about memory requirements and would like to decrease its
> memory footprint.
>
>
> The following things should be done before merging back the branch to trunk:
> * Improve multipolygon processing performance for sea polygons. The mp
> algorithm can count on the "outer" and "inner" tags so the matrix which
> polygon is contained by which polygon should be less complex to create
> * @Steve: Can you check if my changes to the ElementSaver class and my
> coastfile loading mechanism feels good for you? Maybe you want to
> simplify some things?
> * Decrease memory footprint of the coastline file loading. (Maybe this
> could also be done after merging back).
>
>
> Have fun!
> WanMil

The performance improvement does not work. So from my point of view the 
coast branch can be merged back to trunk.

Any objections to this?

WanMil