Usage of Custom Area in Map Matching

Developers
1

Hi,
Now that my custom area successfully loads into the GH service - I’m not sure where I can use it.
I would like to add the custom area to the details returned from the map_matcher (similar to the country) .
when reviewing the response from the map_matcher I could not find it.
Any assistance would be appreciated

2

I reviewed the custom area PR and wasn’t able to see in which api the custom_area is exposed.

Any pointers would be apprciated

3

I don’t think the custom areas are accessible via path details at the moment. What would be the use case? Just returning if the route crosses a certain area? Couldn’t this be done on the client side with an “is in polygon”-check?

I reviewed the custom area PR

Note that this PR was not merged. See this PR instead.

4

Thx @karussell for you responce.
The use-case would be to return a certain AOI in the map matching.
currently the details returns the country, and we would like to return the state or county level

5

Regarding state: this should already work when you add the state encoded value. I think the countries.geojson file already includes this information.

If this is not sufficient you can have a look into e.g. StateParser on how to implement this:

  1. create an encoded value like my_area (enum or integer)
  2. in MyAreaParser use the list from way.getTag(“custom_areas”, emptyList()) to decide which enum/integer
  3. include the encoded value and parser in DefaultImportRegistry
  4. set custom_areas.directory to specify your custom areas. This ensures that areaIndex is populated, which is then used in OSMReader.setArtificialWayTags to set the “custom_areas” list for every coordinate.
  5. Once the encoded value is filled you can use it via path details.
6

Thanks you again for your response.
i’m guessing you are referring to this file for the state parser.
I was hoping that it would only involve the configuration and parsing of the response (as adding the custom_areas) - not requiring to re-compile the code.
i’ll need to rethink my approach.

7

This one.

not requiring to re-compile the code.

Unfortunately this is required at the moment, I think.