Table A

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Table A

Gerd Petermann
Hi Steve,

if I got that change in display tool r383 right, the Table A records should just distinguish
different RoadDefs ?
Is the attached patch ok? It reduces NOD size quite heavily,  but seems to work fine.

Gerd

_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev

TableA-v1.patch (7K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Table A

Steve Ratcliffe

Hi Gerd

> if I got that change in display tool r383 right, the Table A records
> should just distinguish
> different RoadDefs ?
> Is the attached patch ok? It reduces NOD size quite heavily,  but seems
> to work fine.

I can take a look at the patch later, but yes that is correct. There
just needs to be one per road, not one per arc.

..Steve
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Table A

Gerd Petermann
Hi Steve,

that would be great. I always wondered about that redundancy when I looked at the
output of NodDisplay, but I never realized that the redundancy is really in
the img.

Gerd

Steve Ratcliffe wrote
Hi Gerd

> if I got that change in display tool r383 right, the Table A records
> should just distinguish
> different RoadDefs ?
> Is the attached patch ok? It reduces NOD size quite heavily,  but seems
> to work fine.

I can take a look at the patch later, but yes that is correct. There
just needs to be one per road, not one per arc.

..Steve
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev