Waterway=river is for line elements and is not intended for rendering water polygons.
Is this part ‘dry’: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1252425 ?
Can you make a screenshot and post it online and please describe all the map settings as possible that you use in your oregon.
Thanks Ligfietser. I have just got back on a bushwalk yesterday and found out there’s more waterway that didn’t display to the north of the city. So it would appear it’s something more than just Sydney Harbour. I am going to re-d/l the map and try to load the latest version, just in case there’s a build or installation problem. If the problem persists, then I’ll get back to you on those questions.
Update: I have found the problem, one that lies in the ‘Land Cover’ setting (Map Setup → Advanced Setup → Zoom Level → Land Cover). I did re-download the OSM map and place a new install prior to this discovery.
If I use Auto, then a significant part of the Sydney Harbour waterway and major waterways up north of the city would not get displayed. If I switch the setting to Off or any other fixed options, then the expenses of water will be displayed properly.
Thinking back in terms of the sequence of events, I now suspect it might have something to do with firmware 3.50 in my Oregon 650. The issue was noted after this firmware upgrade. I’ll report it to Garmin unless there are other thoughts on why this is happening.
With my Oregon 600, firmware 3.50 and land cover on auto I dont see anything wrong there.
Maybe you can try a master reset of your unit? I’m afraid Garmin won’t listen because it is not an official Garmin map.
Thanks ligfietser. Whilst it’s annoying, I do have a work around, so I won’t “die”. I also can’t really be bothered with a Oregon 650 reset at this stage. I am not sure exactly what benefit the ‘Auto’ setting has for ‘Land Cover’, but doesn’t seem to be too much for my needs at this stage. Will see what the next firmware version bring.
Hi,
I am new to this forum and I am not a Garmin user myself. I apologize if this is the wrong place for my request.
Many mappers in my area have Garmin devices, and my request is somewhat on their behalf. The problem is that their Garmin maps doesn’t show villages which doesn’t have a name tag, and since they really need that information they are now adding a ton of villages like this:
place=village
name=Village
I believe from a data perspective that this tagging is wrong and pollutes the database, and we haven’t been able to convince them to find other ways of handling this. In reality the problem is a bit bigger as their is no agreed upon standard for naming villages, so we end up with many names like: Unnamed, Noname, Name Me, Village, Village ?, etc.
I believe the best solution is “fixing” the Garmin map, and have a filter that applies a fake name to unnamed villages. This way their village shows up and our data does not get polluted.
Is there any chance that this could get implemented, or will it break it for many other users?
P.S. The main reason they need to know where the villages are is because they are mapping in the mountains, and it is important for them to know where they can go for help in case they have an accident - other use it to mark unmapped villages, so they can easily find them when they are out mapping.
This sounds a bit weird, but I haven’t checked. But maybe you mean that these paces are not visible in search only?
Actually this kind of mapping is against OSM best practice. See:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer
This could be easy fixed when creating a map for Garmin. And this is a right way to do it, if this is a specific Garmin map problem.
No, I believe they don’t show up on the map. I have asked some Garmin users to verify and join this thread.
We already had a long discussion and their argument is that the map for this area is not mapped well enough to be used seriously by anyone yet and this is just a temporary solution that will speed up the mapping efforts.
Excellent.
No, it isn’t the search we’re concerned about but the visibility of a hamlet or village that has no other identifying text attached to the node.
The “empty place tag” nodes show up as a tiny black dot on Basecamp and as tiny green sphere on my Garmin Montana. That dot is the smallest of the green dots available Civil section of the waypoint icons. It would be next to impossible to spot it without knowing where it was in advance. If these empty place names had a name that displayed, they would certainly be easier to see.
I dont see the problem here. These “Unknown” places are clearly visible in Mapsource and searchable too.
On the osm.org map they are not rendered: http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2517350608#map=13/16.0989/103.4597
OK, then this is not a problem of missing points but a poor visibility. The simplest solution would be to add visible icon for this object. You can do it without recompilation, simply edit TYP file. Or add TYP file if missing.
The OSM generic map uses the mkgmap default style. In the points file only place=village without name=* is rendered with garmin type 0x0900 (which is very small I guess)
https://github.com/openstreetmap/mkgmap/blob/master/resources/styles/default/points
place=village & cityxx!=yes {set cityxx=yes} [0x0900 resolution 22 continue with_actions]
Place = city or town without a name isnt rendered at all.
If you download the generic new style all places without names are rendered with the same symbol as other places:
http://code.google.com/p/mkgmap-style-sheets/source/browse/trunk/styles/world/points
place=city [0x0400 resolution 16]
place=town [0x0800 resolution 18]
place=village [0x0800 resolution 22]
place=suburb [0x0a00 resolution 22]
place=hamlet [0x0b00 resolution 24]
The screenshot that I posted above is the generic new style.
Yes, that is correct. And thanks for your help on this.
But your answer presents another problem. Editing the TYP file is beyond my ability presently and I suspect the same is true for others of us working in north Thailand. I have downloaded several TYP file editors (TYPWiz, TYPchanger) over the past couple of weeks and I must say I’m totally confused as to how to either create a new “style” or modify an existing one.
There are countless documents on the OSM and related sites that try to explain the methods one might use to create their own styles, icons, TYP files etc. but I have found nothing that explains the entire process of creating a routable OSM map from start to finish. At least nothing I can understand. It’s not as though I’m a complete newbie to computers or technology — I worked as a computer programmer years ago and am fairly comfortable with database concepts.
But trying to understand the relationships of the various files, style sheets found on mkmap or github, TYP files, the OSM’s rendering of objects compared to Garmin’s, JOSM’s rendering of those same objects (which is different again from OSM’s slippy map), is confusing to say the least.
By the way, those empty nodes display very well in JOSM. The icon looks like a house and is surrounded by a black border — very easy to see even without any name text.
So, to get back to the business at hand, just exactly what should one do with the style sheet you show us in those links? I can read it, and understand what it’s saying more or less, but after that what should I do with it? How does it fit into the overall solution to this problem?
For editing TYP file I prefer TYPViewr: https://sites.google.com/site/sherco40/
Typ file is specific to Garmin maps, it defines graphics for a map.
Style file presented by ligfietser is a description for mkgmap, which defines how OSM data should be converted to Garmin map. It is not about look (graphics) but about content (objects) of output map.
You might find this thread interesting: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21779
If it is only a matter of changing the appearance of a certain poi you can stick with the typ file editor.
If you want to render pois that aren’t rendered (like in the general ‘old style’ ) you can compile your own map with mkgmap and adapt the style sheets or change it in the default mkgmap style: http://www.mail-archive.com/mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk/info.html
I have learned map making from this excellent tutorial: http://www.cferrero.net/maps/maps_index.html
It is a little out of date but the basics are still valid. More information about the styles can you find in the mkgmap manual: http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/doc/pdf/style-manual.pdf
I posted a request on the mkgmap-dev list:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/places-without-a-name-not-rendered-td5794524.html
Thanks, I really appreciate the help here.
Apparently the maps can crash on some devices if a city poi doesnt have a name, so that was the reason why they were deleted from the map. We can assign them with a different code though.
For mappers who look for unnamed places, I would recommend to use the overpass turbo tool: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2hG
Can we have unpaved roads shown as such? There are many such “roads” that often are nothing more than tracks pushed into the dirt. Check out road 4044 here in Thailand: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/129148172 Here are some pictures of this: http://www.captainslash.com/chiang-rai-a-loop-through-the-mountains-on-dirt-and-paved/
This shows on the Garmin map as a normal unclassified road. This misleads people into thinking that there is a normal road. Clearly, depending on the vehicle used and the season you can get into trouble here. (Think bike, think monsoon.)
I have tried experimenting with the mkgmap settings, but nothing worked and I can’t figure out how to debug the config files.
Thanks,
Peter.
I think those roads should be tagged on OSM as highway=track, but then you cant see the difference between a major unpaved road and smaller less important ones, esp. in less developed countries. You can use “avoid unpaved” to avoid them in your GPS settings.
In the mkgmap line style you can render unclassified roads (and other types) as tracks:
(highway=unclassified | highway=service) & mkgmap:unpaved=1 {set highway=track}