Worldwide routable Garmin maps: URL REMOVED

Yes, it should work correctly. You can enable all maps in GPS and all will be used and displayed simultaneously.

These are parts of a single map, so routing between parts should work correctly, since boundary nodes of a tiles match precisely. Tiles, which are duplicated in multiple maps will be ignored by GPS. There could be some glitches with address search on areas, which are covered by multiple maps. GPS can search for address on wrong part.

I am a little bit torn about what is wrong here.

I am talking about an old rail line that has been abandoned and eventhough the ground structure is still there the bridge is not.
All online iterations at osm.org do not render the bridge which is correct according to the wiki, the map rendered for the garmin does show the bridge. Which is a bit problematic for navigation.

This is the link to the specific feature,
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230281927

Should I remove the feature from the data or should it not be rendered?

If the bridge is still there, garmin will render it but will not route because there is no way (or is there a path?)
If there is no bridge at all this way (or at least the tag bridge=yes) should be removed of course. Maybe is railway=historic a better tag?

Let me reiterate,

Het dijklichaam is er nog (I called it the ground structure) het brugdeel is weg.
sorry for the language switch, my civil engineering lingo is somewhat lacking.
So it is very visible there was a bridge once but you cannot cross the water there without jumping far or getting wet feet.

The line itself is tagged this way:
Tags
bridge yes
historic:end_date 1958
historic:operator Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad
historic:start_date 1901
railway abandoned
tiger:cfcc B11
tiger:county Baltimore, MD:Harford, MD
tiger:name_base Maryland and Pennsylvania RR

so bridge and abandoned are the key tags. This makes it so openstreetmap online does not render the bridge, the as behavior described in the wiki.

On the garmin both the line and the bridge are rendered, dunno about routing for I usually don’t walk with routing on and I’d rather not be routed on a non abandoned rail line anyway :wink:
If an abandoned rail line was converted to a pathway/ trail i’d imagine it needs to be tagged differently anyway.

Hi, change the bridge=yes tag to demolished:bridge=yes, that should remove the bridge from any routeing.
The railway is already tagged abandoned, (demolished could be a better description of the bridge section) so in the absence of any access tag (i.e. foot=yes) will not be routed.

Bernard

I would recommend to remove bridge=yes because there is no part crossing that stream, demolished:bridge=yes sounds good.
And replace railway=abandoned with railway=dismantled of that part crossing that stream, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Demolished_Railway
This way, Garmin will not render the bridge nor railway (but we are not rendering for the renderer, dont we? ;))

Yep I do not want to tag for the renderer :wink:

Hence my questions and doubts.

I tagged it demolished:bridge=yes and dismantled. I will try in a couple of days to render a small map of that area to see the changes.

This rail thing is rather convoluted to be honest.

I’d say some better definitions are in dire need. There are too many ppl to vested in historical rail lines and I do think that rail lines have impacted surroundings more profoundly then for instance roads. So there is a need to have this info still in the openstreetmap database.

I’d really say look at what’s there and what words mean. But the discussion seems to be more about feelings :wink:

disused means to me not used or planned to be used in the foreseeable future. This also means no maintenance plans for that line. ownership of the land preferable still in the hands of an entity that is or has operated rail transport or maybe the state/country

abandoned, ownership is not in the hand of an entity that is or has operated rail transport. There needs to be some sort of rail identifying marks left, for instance at least ! every kilometer a railroad tie, rails, train signals,etc. Also specific rail support buildings, loading docks, stations, etc. You should be able to use this for navigation.

dismantled, most identifying marks have been removed. for instance an embankment can be used for other things so that would not be an identifying mark. And the identifying marks are few and far apart, more then 2 km for instance. Barely to not usable for navigation.

historic, almost impossible to see that there was a rail line in the past, not usable for navigation.

Something like this would make it also easier for renderers to decide what to render and what not.

I Agree, but this discussion should be held in other topics. To be on-topic, abandoned railways are only rendered in the generic map (default mkgmap style) as path:

railway=abandoned [0x0a road_class=0 road_speed=1 resolution 22]

The generic new style does not even render those lines, unless it is accompanied by highway=* (for instance when such line is converted into a cycleway or footway). Both maps do not render dismantled or historic.

My mistake if we are not talking about the same thing here.

The lines and bridge were rendered in openfietsmap lite, if it is the wrong place to discuss this here I am sorry.
I hope I mentioned that somewhere before, … I did not… ;( I just said the garmin map renders the line.
If they would have not been rendered I would have not been here :wink: Although over the years I have popped up in this topic just because I was curious if something new was happening.

I am happy to hear generic new style does not render them for I use those maps for driving :wink: . Personally I would say that also the generic style should not render the abandoned lines, but I am not affected by that and let the designers of the style make the decision.
[edit] oeps, Now I fell into my own trap … abandoned was still usable for navigation in my definition… :roll_eyes: :rage: :laughing: :laughing:
once again tricky business defining what to include and what not [/edit]

And just to make sure I am understood correctly.

**I love what you guys have done and are still doing, I am just trying to do my little part **

Not being able to adjust a map if you spot something wrong or question about a place is not something I enjoy.
So openstreetmaps with a garmin or an android with osmand is a really nice thing to have for the last 8 years now. Especially since I bought my oregon 300 and euro citynav map in 2007.
The drive was interesting in central america in 2009 with the garmin openstreetmaps. And the current level of detail is just amazing.

if I think something could be improved upon I mention it and sometimes it means I did not understand something correctly. I did start my post stating that I am not sure if this was a rendering or data issue.
And I did edit the data to reflect a “correcter” world view in the OSM data.

Here you can find the OFM style
Abandoned railways are rendered (not routable though) as well as bridge=* (only if it is accompanied by a highway=* or railway=* tag).
So, in the new situation with demolished:bridge=yes and railway=dismantled it will not be visible anymore.

Greetings. A big thank-you for these maps, I’ve been using them successfully for years.

I would like to create a single Garmin img map made from tiles along a single 4000km route (for a race). I presume this is possible using all the tools in the OSM toolchain. I am worried that trying to do it myself would be too difficult and I would find out mid-race that I had done something wrong.

My question: is it possible to replicate the exact script used by garmin.openstreetmap.nl (same software versions, same command line options, same style files, etc.) while just changing the input tiles or “input polygon” or whatever the correct input format is?

Thanks!

I see no need to create the tiles on your own. When you enable “manual tile selecion” you can chose the tiles along your route and they are
combined to one map for you.

Gerd

Well, I was hoping to squeeze the map onto my Edge 520 which only has about 50Mb available for maps. The only way to do this would be to make the tiles along the route only a few square kms each. The default tiles offered by garmin.openstreetmap.nl are far too big.

In that case you’ll have to generate your own map with http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/
It has a steep learning curve but it is possible to do this (well, 50 mb for 4000 km long route…I doubt if it will fit).

Maybe you can check out these maps, compiled for the Garmin Fenix watches, they are much smaller:
http://www.gmaptool.eu/en/content/maps-garmin-fenix

Ok, I will try.

This is why I asked if I could copy the method used by garmin.openstreetmap.nl, so I didn’t have to learn it all myself.

Yes, one probably will not. But maybe I can make two or three maps that I can swap in/out, rather than 10 or 20.

I think this map service is exactly what you are looking for:
https://extract.bbbike.org/extract.html

You can draw a custom polygon and request a Garmin map for that area:

I hope I’m posting in the correct place. I’ve searched around the site and haven’t found my answer.

I have downloaded a file called openfietsmap_lite_gmappsupp.zip. When I try to unzip it, it creates a file called openfietsmap_lite_gmappsupp.zip.cpgz. If I attempt to unzip that file it creates a copy of openfietsmap_lite_gmappsupp.zip.

I’m on an up to date Macbook Pro

What am I doing wrong?

That’s a quirky thing to happen and I found this explanation.
http://osxdaily.com/2013/02/13/open-zip-cpgz-file/

nevw - thank you. I downloaded using a different browser and was successful (Safari worked, Firefox did not).

I now have the map on my Edge Touring and it shows up as “Enabled” but the map does not display.

Any ideas?

Make sure no other maps are enabled except for the basemap.
And you can check for errors with Javawa Device Manager.