Hi Russ,
Unfortunately it will be very difficult and complicated to plot it inside the road edges. Garmin doesn’t like two roads on top of each other or displays it randomly on top or underneath it, depending on the unit.
So this is the best I can get it. I agree it sometimes looks like a track alongside of the road, but thats the way it is.
About pois showing up or not, this also depends on the units firmware, it is controlled by Garmin.
If you find a certain poi type very important, try to extract it from OSM as gpx and/or use the poi loader (if this works on your unit) to put in your device.
With http://overpass-turbo.eu/ you can extract data from OSM to gpx.
Hi Ligfietser,
OK, your comment noted, and I’ll be grateful for what u can do.
I didnt realise it was the Zumo that controlled the POI display, but I take your point about using the POI loader … using Overpass and POI loader will be a new one for me, but it will give me something to play with.
Rgds.
Last week I downloaded the latest files from Lambertus’s site, (12-5-14 version) and installed in Mapsource. I chose the new style as usual.
It would appear that some of the detail is now missing … things like building outlines for sure, and maybe 1-2 other features.
Is this deliberate or an oversight ?
Rgds.
Hi, and thanks for prompt reply … the “answer” was simple. Doh ! I have 2 monitors, and when viewed on one, the buildings and parking lots disappear - slide the window over to the main PC monitor, and they reappear ! Just never noticed before, clearly not a problem of your making !
And a quick change on the Contrast/Gamma, cured things.
No, thats not the same map, and yes Garmin uses its own style and typ.
Last time that I looked at the Garmin edge Touring map, the TYP file didnt work at all!
Dont know if they have improved it recently.
Can you post some screenshots here? I wonder how they render the cycleways, they were hardly visibible at all,
not even any bike routes!
At present, with the “new style”, roads are rendered in Mapsource as :
Motorway - Orange
Trunk - Yellow
Primary - Yellow
Secondary - White
Tertiary - White
Unclassified, Service, Residential &Track - White
Is there any reason why the style can’t be changed to make things a little more colourful, using the full range of colours, instead of just 3.
It would make good sense to use the colours that Osmarender uses. ie ~
Motorway - Blue
Trunk - Green
Primary - Red
Secondary - Orange
Tertiary - Yellow
Unclassified - White
Service & residential - Grey
Track - Brown dashed
What do others users think ? Or is it technically impossible to utilize more colours for ways ?
Rgds, Russ.
It is possible to change the default Garmin colours, but this involves a lot of work. I have done this for my openfietsmap and other map makers do this as well, Freizeitkarte uses the default osm.org colours.
At every zoom level a different line type must be used, the higher you zoom in the thicker the line gets.
This must be done for every road type. Now it uses the default Garmin style which automatically adjust the thickness/width of the road.
If you define this by the typ file, the thickness remains the same as defined in the typ file so it needs a lot of line types.
You can see what the effect this by editing the typ file with a typ file editor. You can make a blue (or other coloured) line type for 0x01 and see that the roadsize remains (too) thick as you zoom out.
OK, thanks for the expliantion. Its probably beyond my skill level to do such work, but hopefully a raft of positive responses might persuade u.
Perhaps if you could take the time to just change the secondary roads to red, it would help.
Rgds.
No, you cannot rely on that. Often the surface on cycleways are not mapped at all, and a cycleway can be either paved or non paved.
No not incorrect, cycleways can be either unpaved or paved, if it is designated for cyclists mkgmap decides it’s a cycleway.
You could question if a footway can be designated for cyclists, I dont think it should be mapped as a footway but as a path.
It’s a narrow rocky mountain bike trail in a remote area but it gets interpreted as a cycleway. It’s signposted as a bike trail so I think bicycle=designated is right.
I understand the confusion now. Unfortunately osm doesnt make a difference between bicycle=designated and mtb=designated, but we can use the mtb:scale tag here to tell mkgmap that these kind of paths arent cycleways, right?
So highway=path with mtb:scale >0 and bicycle=designated stays highway=path (same for footways).
I’m not sure if this should be done with all unpaved paths because there are also semi paved bike signed paths for cycle touring that could/should be rendered as cycleway, but I agree a rocky mtb trail isnt a cycleway at all. Can you provide a link to osm.org so I can test the style?
