data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/59dce/59dceb152a4ae8f2ec1d6a59ec57a97093e56eb0" alt=""
Hello, I produce a map from Geofabrik Ireland file. I discovered that Saint Stephen's Green park in the Dublin city center is not well rendered (in the past it was OK). It looks like a polygon on OpenStreetMap.org but if you take a look in data, it is both a barrier=fence (rendered with the undefined polyline type 0x33) and a leisure=park (polygon type 0x17). How can I force to render the park at least as a polygon and not only like undefined polyline ( without removing the barrier rule in lines style) ? NB : if I remove manually the tag "barrier", the polygon is well rendered. Does it mean I found a bug or does it mean data should not be defined both like polyline and polygon in OSM ? I know that is not your priority, but it becomes to be more and more difficult to display it in Mapsource or Roadtrip. I don't know if it comes from OSM data or Mkgmap. Some parts of the map corrupt the display (Dublin city and south region). It depends on the scale and the level of details chosen . I did not find yet any clue in OSM data. Regards, David
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2515a/2515ae0dde1eba072792d63199a9007212c0ea97" alt=""
Hi David
I produce a map from Geofabrik Ireland file. I discovered that Saint Stephen's Green park in the Dublin city center is not well rendered (in the past it was OK). It looks like a polygon on OpenStreetMap.org but if you take a look in data, it is both a barrier=fence (rendered with the undefined polyline type 0x33) and a leisure=park (polygon type 0x17). How can I force to render the park at least as a polygon and not only like undefined polyline ( without removing the barrier rule in lines style) ?
NB : if I remove manually the tag "barrier", the polygon is well rendered. Does it mean I found a bug or does it mean data should not be defined both like polyline and polygon in OSM ?
Currently lines have priority over polygons, so what you are seeing is to be expected given the data. We could reverse this, but that may introduce the opposite problem. I wouldn't use the same way for two different things, but If that is what people do commonly then I guess we will have to try and deal with it. It is a similar problem the boundary and road problem that was discussed a while ago. Currently the polygon and line rules are not kept separately, but I suppose I could separate them and run against them both. Its a bit of a waste for something that will be fairly rare though. ..Steve
participants (2)
-
David
-
Steve Ratcliffe