Mapnik layout (TYP file) for Garmin osm maps

ligfietser · 2010-11-30T08:44:41.000Z

Since you are making your own map with mkgmap I dont know which Family ID and product ID you have set. Those are the ones you need to enter. They are likely to be different than the ones in the TYp file. Does mapset toolkit ask you to correct the Family ID and Product code in the TYP file? If so, just confirm.

GPS-Mic · 2010-11-30T17:54:28.000Z

Hi

Thanks for your help, now it works! I never set any Family-ID or Product-ID in mkgmap, that was the problem.
I’ll test how the map behaves on the nüvi and report here.

regards M.

Oldy2 · 2011-03-26T15:16:25.000Z

Hi, Ligfietser!

Thanks for this link and answering my question about the difference between Garmin OSM maps and maps with Type file layout. I will be back in the Dutch user forum.

Regards O2

ligfietser · 2011-04-22T20:54:52.000Z

csdf:

One thing to be aware of - older Garmin units do no render lines with borders well: here are some example screengrabs from my GPSMap76Csx using your mapnik.TYP

http://cferrero.net/maps/img/spag1.bmp
http://cferrero.net/maps/img/spag2.bmp
http://cferrero.net/maps/img/spag3.bmp

The unit draws the road border around the end of the way, making a map full of spaghetti. This is unusable and therefore not really suitable as a mkgmap default unless you want to have two TYP files (one for newer units, which can display road borders properly) and one for older units which don’t display borders properly).

I have found a trick to make the spaghetti lines more bearable by placing two lines on top of each other.
One line is routable and has borders. The other line is non routable and has no borders, only a solid colour.
In the line style file it looks like this:

highway=x [0x060 road_speed=1 road_class=1 resolution 20]

In the overlays file:

0x060: 0x06, 0x10106

In the typ file 0x06 is for instance the line width=3 border=1

[_line]
Type=0x06
UseOrientation=N
LineWidth=3
BorderWidth=1
Xpm=“0 0 2 0”
“1 c #FFFFFF”
“2 c #393000”
String1=0x04,street
String2=0x03,straat
String3=0x02,Straße
ExtendedLabels=Y
FontStyle=SmallFont
CustomColor=No
[end]

0x10106 can be a line width=3 border=0 or a 3 pixels wide bitmap:

[_line]
Type=0x10106
UseOrientation=N
LineWidth=3
Xpm=“0 0 1 0”
“1 c #FFFFFF”
ExtendedLabels=Y
FontStyle=NoLabel (invisible)
CustomColor=No
[end]

The result is looking much better on my old Etrex device:

without overlay

with overlay 0x10106

Of course on a newer generation GPS like the Dakota it looks more pretty, but the differences are not too big:

csdf · 2011-04-23T06:10:43.000Z

Clever. I might give this a go…the trouble is I use different thicknesses at different zoom levels so keeping track of things is already a nightmare without then trying to make use of overlays.

ligfietser · 2011-04-23T08:00:18.000Z

I’m using this trick only for the highest zoomlevels. The lower the zoom, the thinner the roads, and on those levels it isnt too much of a problem. The only problem I still have is that I also want to indicate bike routes on top. This is not possible unless I make ‘window’ holes in the 0x10106 bitmap. Disadvantage of those holes is that the roads on my latest map still shows a bit more spaghetti effect. See for an example http://sites.google.com/site/openfietsmap/news/22-04-2011

Beddhist · 2011-04-23T20:25:32.000Z

What you have done here is awesome and it looks really good. However:

ligfietser:

csdf:

Is there any particular reason you want it to look like the Mapnik map?

Simply because it’s the most common osm renderer on the web.

On the web, yes and it produces a professional looking map on screen and possibly when printed (haven’t tried that yet). But the requirements on a GPS are a little different. You want to be able to see roads at a glance. The screen is very small, so you don’t want too much clutter. When driving you don’t have much time to look at the screen, you need to get info quickly and make decisions on where to go based on that (unless you are being routed, but even then: the instructions are not always correct).

Personally, I don’t want too much detail apart from roads and rivers, maybe rail lines. What I do want is contrast.

I have experimented a little with typ files myself, because my Zumo 660 displays minor roads almost the same as dirt tracks: a thin grey line on a white background. (This is a motorcycle GPS…) I have found that no matter how I try you cannot have dashed or dotted lines in a typ file on the Zumo. The reason is that any transparent colour appears as non-tranparent black. You may want to bear that in mind.

Regards,
Peter.

Lambertus · 2011-05-24T17:48:44.000Z

I’d like to do a test run for the whole planet and publish it as experimental via the website.

Will this TYP file show the sea polygons when the maps are generated with the default stylesheet or marine stylesheet? And will this commandline you referenced in one of your emails to the Mkgmap dev list work?

--generate-sea=extend-sea-sectors,close-gaps=6000,floodblocker,land-tag=natural=background

And shouldn’t there be another parameter ‘polygons’?

ligfietser · 2011-05-24T19:53:49.000Z

Hi Lambertus,
The default style doesn’t have a land-tag like natural=background or natural=land. And therefore i didnt add it in the mapnik.typ file as well, the typ file does however have a tag for natural=sea. The tag natural=background I have invented myself for the OFM because natural=land is already used to tag islands in a lake or something. If you leave that land-tag out I dont know what the consequences are for the rendering. I dont use a parameter ‘polygons’.

Another option is to adapt the default style and use your own style (you can add a line like natural=land or background, throw away buildings etc and those ugly gsm masts, border lines etc)

ligfietser · 2011-05-24T21:48:55.000Z

I made a small map of the Zeeland province with the default style and --generate-sea=extend-sea-sectors,close-gaps=6000,floodblocker
Without a land-tag it looked ok, after I made some modifications of the typ file. I had to give the sea polygon the lowest draw order.
The new version you can download here: http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~ligfietser/diverse/mapnik.typ_r1946.zip

Lambertus · 2011-05-25T08:01:16.000Z

Cool, thanks!

g0ldfish · 2011-05-26T13:53:13.000Z

Looking around through several available styles in order to find what works best for me, I noticed that the definition for 0x08 (minor ramp) is skipped, so these ramps would be displayed whatever the default is on the given device.

The default mkgmap style uses this both for primary and secondary links. I would suggest to set it to the color of secondary highways, as in my opinion a primary road with a “lower class” ramp/link looks more plausible than a secondary with a “higher class” ramp/link.

ligfietser · 2011-05-26T15:19:10.000Z

g0ldfish, I’ve added your suggestion, see
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~ligfietser/diverse/mapnik.typ_r1946.zip

ligfietser · 2011-07-31T07:56:19.000Z

Beddhist:

ligfietser:

If you use a typ file by default it won’t be a problem, then we can use overlays to distinguish those roads and add even more features, like tracktype (1-5) cyclelanes etc etc

I don’t know whether Lambertus wants to use a typ by default and I also don’t know whether it’s a good idea to force it onto people. On the other hand, we should be able to force mkgmap to correctly translate lanes and walkways. In my way of thinking we should set things up so that the style will render the map as correctly as possible without a typ, which can then be used for enhancements.

Should we move this discussion into a new topic?

Cheers,
Peter.

Another option is to send the maps by default with a typ file (which is empty) like the emtpy.typ in http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~ligfietser/diverse/mapnik.typ_r1946.zip
and a mapnik one (and maybe some others) as well, so someone can simply rename emty.typ (or default.typ) by one of those others.

Beddhist · 2011-07-31T08:04:19.000Z

Now that’s a great idea, although it will mean that you need to maintain several typ files and keep them in sync.

ligfietser · 2011-07-31T08:21:12.000Z

Thats why its good to have several people mainting this. You have several opnions about what’s an optimal typ file, and besides every gps Garmin model seems to behave differently (like your Zumo which doesnt handle dotted lines, the old Etrex that spits out spaghetti lines etc)

Beddhist · 2011-08-01T09:53:33.000Z

Some observations for the mapnik typ:

Shelter shouldn’t be 0x2b,0x5, because that’s tagged as campground in MS and will probably show up in searches. Let’s stick with 0x6 which is Lodging/Park. I think we can live with that. Strangely, there is no entry for this in the mkgmap style, so I don’t know why it’s rendered at all.

2B01 Hostel should be Gîte in French.

ligfietser · 2011-08-01T10:23:51.000Z

This discussion belongs to another topic because it concerns the style sheet.
I can’t find a Garmin poi type 0x6?
Lodging is not good category either, because most shelters here in Europe only can used as shelter against rain, or for picnicking and stayin overnight is not allowed and lacks all facilities.

Maybe use the 0x2800-028?? (label category)
Or the same as tourism=picnic_site [0x4a00] ?

About the hostel label: the mapnik typ file is created by a French guy so I wont change that

Beddhist · 2011-08-02T09:44:19.000Z

ligfietser:

About the hostel label: the mapnik typ file is created by a French guy so I wont change that

Take it from me: hostel is not hotel in French. I’ve lived there for 7 years.

ligfietser · 2011-08-07T11:17:44.000Z

Aha I see what you mean. The icon for type 2b01 is totally wrong there.
2b01 = hotel, hôtel and needs to get another symbol (=2b00 which isnt in use in the style file)
2b02 = hostel aka auberge de jeunesse which should get the icon that is shown as 2b01
2b02 = guest house, gîte

I will put it on the issue list.

Edit: issue solved