mkgmap style aligned to standard MPC type codes?

Is there an available comprehensive style for mkgmap that uses insofar as possible the standard Garmin (MPC) type codes, as listed for example by TYPViewer, for equivalent OSM tags?

I have looked at the mkgmap default, OS50, mapnik and CF-MS styles, and at the TYP files that are downloaded with OSM-garmin maps from several popular sites. While some are comprehensive, they all seem to use quite a few of the standard MPC type codes for features other than those specified by MPC.

This seems unnecessary given all the user-customisable codes designated in MPC, and it just seems to complicate life (a new tower of Babel?). I guess it arose in the OSM community before the full MPC code list was widely known.

Am I missing somewhere a comprehensive mkgmap style that converts whenever possible to standard/default MPC codes?

I don’t know if such thing exists, but here are some links that might help:

You won’t find it, since there is no MPC standard. Each GPS and Garmin program uses a bit different set of defaults and MPC defaults doesn’t cover any usable range of objects to be used as suggested standard.

Thanks Ligfietser and popej. To me the mpc codes (copied below as listed in TYPviewer) seem fairly comprehensive. Since they come from garmin, I guess they are the nearest thing to a standard, and they do allow plenty of scope for user customizable settings where a desired element is not defined in the default set. But I am getting the message that the OSM community has not converged on use of this standard. I still think that causes unnecessary obfuscation, though it is understandable that people who have created elegant typ files might be reluctant to change now to use the standards where defined.

[Polygons] 0x00100=Urban Areas/LARGE_CITY/Large urban area, 200 000 or more inhabitants/Non NT 0x00200=Urban Areas/SMALL_CITY/Small urban area, less than 200 000 inhabitants/Non NT

Moreton please do not post this large text here, just add a link to the table you are referring or start a wiki page.

Why do you call it standard, when like 80% of position is CUSTOMIZABLE?
Actually you can’t create a decent topo map without customizable types. Think about standards for coniferous forest and deciduous forest, chimney, tower or wind turbine, marked hiking trails, moutain passes? Even standard railroad object is not suitable for topo map.

Sorry about the long table Ligfiester. Interested users can indeed download it with TYPviewer (provided they are willing and able to jump through all the hoops needed to get around virus/Trojan warnings with the currently available / definitive source).

I understand your point popej. But (to me) liberal use of the many available customizable typ codes (potentially good) is a separate issue to variation of those codes which are defined in MPC (undesirable). Every OSM converter that I checked does vary from some of these codes that are defined in MPC, but not in a consistent way between different OSM converters.

IMHO current references are:

I’m sure most people, who create maps, use these references to some extent, but it is not sufficient to make a god map.