logo separator

[mkgmap-dev] overview2 branch

From GerdP gpetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com on Fri Apr 19 08:38:37 BST 2013

Hi,

Felix suggested to use e.g.
levels = 0:24, 1:22, 2:21, 3:20, 4:19, 5:18
levels_overview_map = 0:16, 1:14, 2:12, 3:10

If one uses style rules that assign level instead of resolution, it would be
unclear
what the level means when overview-levels are also specified.
If I got this right, we have to use something like this:
levels = 0:24, 1:22, 2:21, 3:20, 4:19, 5:18
levels_overview_map = 6:16, 7:14, 8:12, 9:10

Gerd


Felix Hartmann-2 wrote
> I think *_ovm.img is also better than memory.
> 
> As for not having the same resolution in both the .img file, and the 
> overview map. I don't know. Maybe it even works. (as the overview map is 
> not transferred to the GPS, trying it out won't do any harm, except in 
> case of failure to recreate the map without overlap in the overview img).
> And for the style - I really think just adding it to the options file is 
> perfect. In case you want to change the level coordination (e.g. in 
> general start the overview map at resolution 16, for continents start it 
> at 15) would be very easy (well maybe a command line parameter for 
> overview map levels in addition even better?). Much easier than a 
> separate style.
> 
> And even if the overview map is created with different style, I don't 
> think this does any harm - The overview map is practically independent 
> of the rest of the map (except that it needs to reference the individual 
> .img files).
> On 17.04.2013 09:14, Gerd Petermann wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think I understand now better why Felix wouldd prefer to create the 
>> overview map directly from the OSM data, but this requires a change in 
>> the program logic:
>> Up to now the normal processing is that one mkgmap "job" reads one OSM 
>> file and writes one img.
>> If options like --gmapsupp, --index, --tdbfile etc. are used, the main 
>> program finally starts so-called combiners that read the *.img files 
>> and produce the additional files.
>>
>> Now, to implement your idea, we have to change the logic so that a 
>> normal job writes one *.img and one additional file (e.g. *_ovm.img) 
>> with the overview map data .
>> A final overview combiner would read the *_ovm.img files and combine 
>> them in the overview map.
>> Another alternative would be to collect the overview data in memory, 
>> but this would require heap and some synchronization between the 
>> different jobs (threads), so I'd prefer
>> writing the additional files as this seems easier to me.
>>
>> If I got you right, the only needed configuration would be the -- 
>> levels_overview_map option to say which levels (resolutions) are 
>> written to the *.img files and which are for the *_ovm.img files. 
>> assume that we must make sure that the two level statements do not 
>> overlap so that you can't have the same resolution in both the *.img 
>> files and the overview map?
>>
>> I think I like this solution because it means that I don't have to 
>> find a new user interface for the overview map, and it also reduces 
>> the maintenance work for the map creators.
>>
>> I don't know how much work it would be to implement the writing of the 
>> *_ovm.img, and I see a few potential problems if the *.img files and 
>> the *_ovm.img files are not all created with the
>> same style.
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>> Gerd
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:37:50 +0200
>> From: 

> extremecarver@

>> To: 

> mkgmap-dev at .org

>> Subject: Re: [mkgmap-dev] overview2 branch
>>
>> Well I finally got around trying out the overview map. For what it is 
>> supposed to do, it works for me now.
>> However I would really like to have multiple levels in the overview map.
>>
>> So for a start, the overview file (to be present in future could 
>> contain in the first line, a levels definition, just like what is 
>> currently used in the options file for the normal maps).
>>
>>
>> As for objects disappearing in between. Garmin does just that in the 
>> overview map of CN maps. There you have the main important train 
>> connections in Europe in the highest level of the overview map. They 
>> are missing in the lowest resolution of the normal maps however, to 
>> reappear in the next map level.
>> The reason could be, that displaying the overview map is very CPU/HDD 
>> effective, while the more is shown on the lowest normal resolution of 
>> the map, the slower the device/mapsource/basecamp gets.
>>
>>
>> Still I would really love to have resolutions 10,12,14,16 all with map 
>> data in the overview map. 16 being empty in the normal maps. And from 
>> resolution 17 or 18 normal maps with data.
>> I suppose this is possible with
>>
>> Sample:
>> line:0x1e,level=1
>>
>> However I think it would be much better to have the overview map 
>> created directly from the osm base material, and not from the .img. 
>> Creating from .img could be an option too, but it simply only offers 
>> limited options.
>> Image you have in your map:
>>
>> highway=motorway & network 
>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:network>=e-road 
>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:network%3De-road&action=edit&redlink=1> 
>> [resolution 14-14 0x01 continue]
>> highway=motorway [resolution 16-18 0x01 continue]
>>
>>
>> So clearly the e-road trunk is much more important, while also being 
>> of type 0x03. If the aim is now to have resolution 16 empty in the 
>> map, while showing content in the overview map, this is not possible 
>> anymore using the current approach of reading the finished .img files.
>> It would be much easier if inside the options file we have:
>> levels = 0:24, 1:22, 2:21, 3:20, 4:19, 5:18
>> levels_overview_map = 0:16, 1:14, 2:12, 3:10
>>
>>
>>
>> And if there is a need to create subsequent overview maps, than an 
>> existing overview map could be copied and information added based on 
>> the current algo (copy in data from last used resolution, if 
>> resolution matches the levels_overview_map pramater. So i.e. copy in 
>> map content of resolution 16, but don't copy in data from resolution 
>> 18 if resolution 16 is empty)
>>
>> On 11.04.2013 09:38, GerdP wrote:
>>
>>     WanMil wrote
>>
>>             Yes, and I think it makes sense to do that. If you add
>> something to the
>>             overview map which
>>             is not shown in the next level, you will see that the
>> boundary lines
>>             disappear in Basecamp when you zoom in
>>             (using full map data, not basemap only).
>>
>>         You can implement styles where this happens in the normal map.
>>
>>         boundary=administrative & admin_level<3 [0x1e resolution 16-18
>> continue]
>>         boundary=administrative & admin_level<3 [0x1e resolution 22]
>>
>>         The boundary will disappear in resolution 19 to 21.
>>
>>         Don't know if that makes sense but it is possible. So I don't see
>> a
>>         reason why this shouldn't be possible for the overview map too.
>>
>>     Well, I can change the format of the config file so that one can
>> specify
>>     the level or resolution which should be used to read the data from.
>>     This would be an optional parm, with the default being level 0 
>> (resolution
>>     24)
>>     Sample:
>>     line:0x1e,level=1
>>     or
>>     line:0x1e,resolution=22
>>
>>     Open question:
>>     Should I also add support for multiple levels in the overview map?
>>
>>     This would result in something like this:
>>     line:type=0x1e,from-resolution=22,to-resolution=13
>>
>>     with the meaning:
>>     Read the img files, collect all lines with type 0x1e on map
>> resolution 22
>>     and place them in the overview map on resolution 13.
>>     The defaults would remain as they are: read only the lowest
>> resolution,
>>     place everything on level 14.
>>
>>     Gerd
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     View this message in
>> context:http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/overview2-branch-tp5756308p5756594.html
>>     Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     mkgmap-dev mailing list
>>     

> mkgmap-dev at .org

>   &lt;mailto:

> mkgmap-dev at .org

> &gt;
>>     http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> keep on biking and discovering new trails
>>
>> Felix
>> openmtbmap.org &www.velomap.org  &lt;http://www.velomap.org&gt;
>>
>> _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing 
>> list 

> mkgmap-dev at .org

>  
>> http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mkgmap-dev mailing list
>> 

> mkgmap-dev at .org

>> http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> 
> -- 
> keep on biking and discovering new trails
> 
> Felix
> openmtbmap.org & www.velomap.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list

> mkgmap-dev at .org

> http://lists.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev





--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/overview2-branch-tp5756308p5757684.html
Sent from the Mkgmap Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


More information about the mkgmap-dev mailing list