Hi again, Gerd, Thanks for the help on the pipeline rendering rule. I checked to see if the style renders the pipeline in the area where I removed the tags from the way and it rendered there perfectly. There was one error in the rule you provided, the word "way". When I tried to compile my map, mkgmap complained and provided the line number of the error so it was easy to fix. Here's the corrected rule: type=route & route=pipeline { apply { set man_made=pipeline; } } During that long thread about tagging groups of lakes, someone suggested creating a new relation type of "group". I wasn't ready to try creating something new so I grouped my lakes into a standard multipolygon as I've always done. Then a few days ago I came across a situation that was perfect to experiment with the idea of a type=group. There are three large rocks near Kodiak Island (Alaska) that together have the name "Three Sisters Rocks". (See http://www.geonames.org/5876155/three-sisters-rocks.html) The rocks are nodes, not ways, so the multipolygon approach wouldn't work. I created a new relation, tagged it as type=group and added the three nodes to it, added a name tag and saved it. Of course, OSM doesn't know anything about it, not even the name, because it has no idea what to do with a multipolygon of type=group. Then, because of your hint I was able to construct this rule which made them visible in my mkgmap images! type=group & name=* { apply {set name='${name}'; } } I can't decide whether to leave them as a "group" or try to invent a new scheme to tag them. I certainly will not be pushing for the creation of a new relation type anytime soon. Life is too short LOL Best, Dave -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com