If how a junction view looks is so important to you, you may try getting old junction view files from previous years and see if they show with Tomtom maps (you may need the licenses as well). After all, it's not that they change the highway exits every year. My guess is Here shows the most sophisticated views depending on some pattern or info in the map file (fbl) that may be wrong or missing for some reason in the map.
You can use older files with new ones from the same provider. That doesn't guarantee that Tomtom's are going to look so real as Here's. What you see now(wit Tomtom) is the basic NNG junction views that are probably inside the .fbl file. Check older threads in the maps section and check if older Tomtom maps have the fjw files(and license).
23rd April 2017, 02:28 PM
Nx4
Well, the same test in Primo will be interesting even more, because there were no licenses for .fjw files anyway.
So, TomTom win it on showing far more junction views. Interesting. But then, how's that .fbl files of TomTom are significantly smaller in size, comparing to HERE (I'm talking about Eastern Europe countries)?
Sent from my LG E960 Mako using Tapatalk
23rd April 2017, 02:32 PM
Boki
Algorithm and compression
24th April 2017, 06:57 AM
Nx4
Well, maybe you're right.
But overall coverage of TomTom maps is less detailed than HERE's one (again for Eastern Europe), i.e. it contains less data.
I think it's the main reason for differentiation in sizes of .fbl files.
24th April 2017, 08:01 AM
Boki
Well, NO. The difference in size can not be explained-compared to the difference in the details. Not comparable.
I know for sure for for my city, for some other parts; Greece fore example in detail.
And for Germany, for example, coverage have even more details in some parts then Here, size is significantly smaller.
Same story is proven for some other files for iGO: basemap, POI's, etc...