Worldwide routable Garmin maps: Missing/incorrect feature requests

Thanks ligfietser and muralito. I still have a lot to learn (not just about OSM). So I am reluctant to edit features added by someone else to OSM, particularly when they may have good reasons to label a certain way. However, when the translation to garmin uses separate TYP codes for the different feature classes (OSM tags) anyone can control whether/how the labels appear on their personal maps. I agree with the Netherlands convention not to put a tag place=* on boundary areas, and I can achieve that for my own maps (without offending anyone on OSM) if a separate TYP code is used as tested above by ligfietser.

In the specific example we have discussed, I am not convinced that the parishes and eponymous localities or hamlets represent the same thing. The ‘parish’ is an administrative area (which often has no administrative centre: that occurs several layers up at shire or city level - ‘local government areas’ in Australian political parlance). Someone interested in title deeds may be interested in the parish name and geographic location (or may be happy that the parish label if used is consistently at the geographic centre). On the other hand, if you ask a local for directions to a ‘locality’, they will send you to an accessible and likely populated area (albeit sometimes sparsely populated) that may be some distance from the geographic centre of an eponymous parish. This can be important for example to emergency services responding to a request for assistance from a locality. Hamlets, villages and towns are easy as they have more defined boundaries (often with a road sign) and the mapping convention is to show a dot at their centre. It would be good to be able to distinguish these different types of places on the map (hopefully in the future).

Regarding examples of labels that come and go during zoom, in ligfietser’s test map above (post #294) some parish labels show (Upper Main Arm, Palmwoods, Yelgun etc.) while others do not (Main Arm, The Pocket, Middle Pocket, Billinudgel) even at the same zoom level. Some seem to be in clear areas (like Main Arm, well South of the hamlet of Main Arm). For me in BaseCamp, parish labels of Main Arm and The Pocket often blink on-off-on as I zoom in, but it is complicated. Sometimes once ‘Main Arm’ parish label has appeared at close zoom it stays on when later zoomed out. Also the behaviour for some labels depends whether I have added a transparent contour overlayer to the (new style) base map. So as ligfietser says it may well be BaseCamp working to avoid clashes of some kind. In any case, it is one reason for me to use the capability for ExtendedLabels=Y, FontStyle=NoLabel (invisible) on an unwanted label type (such as OSM boundary=administrative & place=locality) if that is made possible by use of distinct TYP codes, as in ligfietser’s test.

In case anyone has been interested in the identity of the admin-boundary-derived ‘localities’ mentioned above, after closer inspection I think they are neither parishes (largely historical cadastral admin areas) nor current ABS SSCs (statistical areas) nor current gazetted ‘Localities and State Suburbs’ (officially recognised area names); but they may be ‘suburbs’ as shown on some (presumably out-dated) maps such as the NSW base map that can be viewed on the LPI SIX website (consistent with the source tag). For example, Palmwoods is included under Main Arm and Middle Pocket is included under The Pocket in current ‘State Suburbs’. See for example http://betaworks.abs.gov.au/betaworks/betaworks.nsf/projects/ASGSBoundariesOnline/frame.htm

But this does not alter (except to strengthen) the underlying propositions:

(i) Localities as identified by locals frequently do not coincide with the geographic centre of an eponymous administrative area (defined by a boundary that governments are free to change over time).

(ii) It is probably better not to label administrative areas in OSM, to avoid confusion with eponymous localities, hamlets, villages, towns, cities, shires etc.

(iii) But because some OSM contributors will label administrative areas, it is very helpful if the (mkgmap) conversion styles assign these to different TYP codes, so that users can choose which labels they wish to display on their own maps/computers/GPSr units.

(iv) It would also be good to use a separate TYP code for non-admin-area-derived localities, so that these can be displayed as areas (no place dot) as distinct from hamlets, villages, towns etc which can logically and by convention be associated with a dot location on a map.

The MPC TYP codes seem to allow this by:
OSM boundary=administrative & place=locality (or anything below state level): Point Type 01f/00 (county)
OSM place=locality & boundary!=*: Point Type 064/0a (locale)
OSM place=hamlet; Point Type 00c/00 (town < 5K)
Other OSM place tags can translate to other Point Types (depending on current population) as noted above.

If the boundaries themselves are desired for display, MPC offers these Line Types (again lifted from TYPViewer):
Type=0x1c: Major political boundary (typically used for state, provincial borders)
Type=0x1d: Minor political boundary (typically used for county/parish borders)
Type=0x1e: International boundary

On roads

surface=compacted

should be rendered as unpaved.

Thanks,
Peter.

Not sure which map you are looking at but that is already implemented Peter:

# Flag unpaved roads.
highway=*
& (surface=cobblestone | surface=compacted | surface=dirt |
   surface=earth | surface=grass | surface=grass_paver |
   surface=gravel | surface=grit | surface=ground | surface=mud |
   surface=pebblestone | surface=sand | surface=unpaved |
   mtb:scale=* |
   tracktype ~ 'grade[2-6]' |
   smoothness ~ '.*(bad|horrible|impassable)' |
   sac_scale ~ '.*(mountain|alpine)_hiking' |
   sport=via_ferrata)
{ add mkgmap:unpaved=1 }

You are correct, it is. It’s just that it is nearly invisible, like here:

If you zoom in the brown dashes disappear, if you zoom out they become so small they become obscure.

Is this different from how other dirt roads are displayed? I have seen many where it is very well visible. What’s more, when I put my mouse pointer on them I get two info boxes, one of them saying “unpaved”. This doesn’t happen here.

Thanks for your time.

I think it depends on the OSM highway tags. It is not a highway=track (normal dirt roads) but a tertiary, those are maybe too wide for the dashed lines?
You can change that by editing the typ file. I’m not sure why you don’t see that label ‘unpaved’

[_line]
Type=0x10002
UseOrientation=N
Xpm="32 7 2  1"
"! c #7B6500"
"  c none"
"!!!!!!  !!!!!!  !!!!!!  !!!!!!  "
"!!!!!!  !!!!!!  !!!!!!  !!!!!!  "
"                                "
"                                "
"                                "
"                                "
"                                "
;12345678901234567890123456789012
String1=0x04,unpaved
String2=0x03,onverhard
String3=0x02,Unbefestigt
String4=0x01,sans revêtement
ExtendedLabels=Y
FontStyle=NoLabel (invisible)
CustomColor=No
[end]

I have found out that the ref tag is the cause, without ref or name tag, the label unpaved is rendered.
I dont know how to solve this, I can’t remove the ref or name tag unfortunately.

Edit: found a mkgmap option ‘addlabel unpaved’ and committed it to the style sheet. I also made ‘ice_roads’ not routable. https://github.com/ligfietser/mkgmap-style-sheets/commit/31b7b63845e75fb1ab4a62bb39b3230c38f631f5

All good, thanks for that. At least, the option to not route over unpaved works.

Another one: paved tracks are rendered as unpaved roads. I assume the routing engines treat them as unpaved. I realise that in Europe a lot of these are closed to motor vehicles and whence routing thru them is probably undesirable. In Thailand there is a continuum from unpaved tracks to paved tracks to small roads, all usable by any vehicle that physically fits. It is desirable to get routed thru anything paved.

Regards,
Peter.

Depends what someone calls paved and what unpaved. That really makes a difference in what country you are. Guess the situation in Thailand is very different than Europe. For my OFM I consider tracks with grade1 or surface=asphalt as paved (same rendering as paved unclassified). Is that what you have in mind?

I have found that

highway=track
surface=paved

is rendered as an unpaved road and when you put the mouse pointer over it it says: “unpaved road”.

In Thailand most small roads and residential streets have a concrete surface.

You are absolutely right Peter. Looking at the generic new styles, the rule that is causing this issue is this one:

(highway=bridleway | highway=path | highway=track | highway=unsurfaced)
& surface!=* & tracktype!=* & smoothness!=* & sac_scale!=*
{ add mkgmap:unpaved=1 }

If my interpretation is correct, it says that all those types of highway are considered as unpaved, unless there is a surface, tracktype, smoothness AND sac_scale parameter! This rule makes no sense at all so must be corrected. The mkgmap default rule is the same so I will discuss this on the mkgmap-dev list first.

In the default style the rule is preceded by this one:

highway=*
& (surface=cobblestone | surface=compacted | surface=dirt |
   surface=earth | surface=grass | surface=grass_paver |
   surface=gravel | surface=grit | surface=ground | surface=mud |
   surface=pebblestone | surface=sand | surface=unpaved |
   mtb:scale=* |
   tracktype ~ 'grade[2-6]' |
   smoothness ~ '.*(bad|horrible|impassable)' |
   sac_scale ~ '.*(mountain|alpine)_hiking' |
   sport=via_ferrata)
{ add mkgmap:unpaved=1 } 

So I think the rule is not that wrong.

I dont understand it Gerd. What does “&” mean then? To me it says make highway=track unpaved if surface AND tracktype AND smoothness AND sac_scale are not empty. Otherwise I cant explain why surface=paved is set unpaved by mkgmap?

I also understand the rule like that.
It should not set mkgmap:unpaved=1 for a way with highway=track and surface=paved
I did not yet try it. If it does I’d say something is wrong in mkgmap.

Now I’ve tested it, and it worked ok. Even with avoidance. The only thing that is not correct is the generic new typ file, it still says unpaved because that is the label if there is no streetname. I can try to correct it by adding a second label.
But still, the syntax is a bit strange: & surface!=* & tracktype!=* & smoothness!=* & sac_scale!=*

Unpaved will not be applied if one of those values is not empty, and I read it as ALL of above values must be not empty.
And then it is still not correct. Say someone tagged the track with surface=soil (1014 values in OSM, but not specified as unpaved by mkgmap). It is better specify a rule like

highway=track & surface! ~ '.*(paved|asphalt|sett|concrete|paving_stones|metal|wood)' { add mkgmap:unpaved=1 } 

And what about cobblestone? Paved or unpaved?

I’d rather add the surface=soil part to the preceding rule.

Agree, we cannot catch all types that people have entered.

Actually condition like surface!=* means opposite: highway is unpaved if surface IS EMPTY and tracktype IS EMPTY and …

My fault, yes you are right, if all those parameters don’t exists its unpaved. The preceding rule has to catch all unpaved and if surface=something else mkgmap assumes it is paved. I only need to add label=paved to this rule, but I better prefer a rule like surface=paved etc {addlabel ‘paved’} rather then “if those parameters are not empty” then assume its paved and add a label paved to it