[mkgmap-dev] Small holes in boundary coverage

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.