Thread: FJV & FJW discussions

Yes, vector format (for sure) use parts to build an image. This is same way Garmin does it. And it's widely known that .fjw are vector format. What's interesting is we now have vector format in .fjv as well. But why bother? There are less junction in .fjv and it's bigger in size. So we have some violated rules (or preconceptions)
1. Vector are in .fjw and Raster are in .fjv
2. Why store similar format in .fjw and .fjv?
3. If Primo/iGO can read .fjv with vector format, that's mean it's capable of doing so very early on (BEFORE .fjw was introduced)
Only thing I can think of is they are made by different entity. I need to find HERE .fjv in raster format, anyone got old version of .fjv (before 2010?)
BTW, for raster, a "count" is definitely one junction image. For vector, I'm 99% sure a "count" is also to build one junction image (ie: not parts of an image)

Here is an example of the first two entries for New_Zealand_HERE_2016.Q4_170102_(JW).fjw

Spoiler: .

This post requires you to click the "LIKE this post" button and hit F5 to read this content.

And here are first two entries for New_Zealand_HERE_2016.Q4_170102_(JV).fjv (do not assume they are corresponding with .fjw file)

Spoiler: .

This post requires you to click the "LIKE this post" button and hit F5 to read this content.