Messages

@karlchick
Would you please prepare a very simple theme (only a couple of rules) with an explanation what should happen and what really happens? Thanks

The biggest issue for me is the miss-processing bu the map rendering engine for "no" and "yes" values that are common to many different keys.

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly but I guess it's related to this issue https://github.com/mapsforge/mapsforge/pull/1366 and this is already fixed

Another improvement could be if the rendering engine could process multiple categories, e.g. cat="os-25k|os-dyn", it would greatly reduce the size of theme file.

@Menion Could I kindly ask you to check how difficult it would be to implement?

I can understand what you want to achieve. But the question is if it is really vital.

There are 2 million directional features in OSM, but only 1.5% are combined with an aspect or saddle. Only 2% of the saddle elements also have a direction marker. The situation is better for viewpoints - 11% of viewpoints have a directional marker. I'm just wondering if this is really necessary...

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/direction#values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=saddle#combinations
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/tourism=viewpoint#combinations

@karlchick I'm sorry, but the map does not include natural=saddle. Maybe there is some OSM element with a combination mountain_pass=yes and natural=saddle but natural=saddle (alone) is not available in the test map even in the latest version.

>I also wonder if adding direction tag, if it could be provided for viewpoints too...
Why not but could I ask you how you work with this tag in your theme, please?

@karlchick
elements with lm_highway=* don't contains tag tidal=*
Please see the list of processed tags in my previous post

@jusc - The V3 maps used our internal renderer, which was only available in the Locus Map Application (or still is, actually). The new LoMaps in the V4 generation use the original Mapsforge renderer, and we are limited or better we have all the capabilities of the official Mapsforge renderer. https://github.com/asamm/mapsforge/blob/master/docs/Rendertheme.md
Themes for LoMaps can use standardized directives, and our possible improvements to the renderer can be used by the Mapsforge community.

as @Menion mentioned we've already created some improvements in the official MapsForge render and adopted "cubic" or text and symbol orientation. 
I also like the scale-font or scale-symbol directives but I think it doesn't fit the conception of theme when only the "rule" should specify the appearance of a particular element.

bg-rect-* are also a little bit strange and were created especially for our use-cases. Anyway, I've already thought about adopting of the "Shield" system used by Mapnik https://github.com/mapnik/mapnik/wiki/ShieldSymbolizer
It's basically a combination of image and text - especially used for highway number shields. 

@karlchick yes, 'lm_highway' is a copy of the original 'highway' tag. So every value of the 'highway' tag is available in 'lm_highway' tag. Of course, you need to take into account the set of tags of the tag mapping file https://github.com/asamm/lomaps-mapsforge/blob/main/various/tag-mapping-xml/tag-mapping-tourist.xml#L1328

The following tags are copied from the original way to "marked trail" way:
- highway (as lm_highway)
- sac_scale
- tunnel
- bridge
- layer
and ferry=route is mapped to custom lm_highway=ferry

Would it be possible to include the tidal tag with the lm_highway tag?

It should be possible. But this is the same situation we discussed in another thread. Please consider whether this is really vital because of the number of (15) maximum tags.

Ahh I see, thank you

Hi,
could I kindly ask you to send me a screenshot of the mentioned trail - if possible with GPS coordinates or some location info. We'll check it.

@karlchick I'm sorry, could you please describe in more detail what is wrong with this nature_preserve? I must be blind or not understanding   

@karlchick
I understand that in this situation the "layer" tag is probably misapplied (as per the instructions). However, I have always tried to avoid manipulating OSM data "from the table" (unless it's necessary)

I really think the best solution is to add a "layer" tag for hike & vike way as well. Please try the following map (not posted in the store). I think it should solve your problems.  https://gofile.me/7ecf2/CVYghVabB

In any case, this is very likely to cause further complications. Mapsforge has an internal limit where a node/path can have a maximum of 15 tags. I know there are already paths with 15 tags and I'm afraid that using a layer tag will exceed this limit. Well, we'll see during the next generation

The difference is that in Lomaps routes are not attached to the original highway, so they don't keep the layer=1 value. In OSM the route remains as a tag on the highway.

Exactly...

I know that 'layer' complicates some situations like streams in forest areas etc. But generally, the layer tag is important for bridges, junctions...so instead of removing it, would it be better to add it also for cycling routes?

@karlchick the updated England map is available in the Locus Store. (the map version remains the same - please delete the map and download it again)