You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.
Reporter: dieterdreist [Submitted to the original trac issue database at 3.19pm, Saturday, 4th September 2010]
I noticed that potlatch doesn't display multipolygons correctly: it requires the tags for the relation (e.g. building=yes) to be attached to the outer way, which is clearly false. It doesn't interpret (display) them right when set inside the relation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Author: Richard [Added to the original trac issue at 11.01am, Sunday, 5th September 2010]
I assume you're talking about P2 rather than P1 (which doesn't display multipolygons at all). Consequently I'll close this as invalid because trac is not yet used for P2 - there are wiki pages and a TODO.txt instead.
That said, this is a known issue but I'm not sure whether it's an issue with P2 or with tagging practice. Putting way-level tags on the relation is not used anywhere else in OSM and consequently violates the principle of least surprise. I have no idea how you would even begin to code a feature saying "take the tags from the way, unless it's a multipolygon, in which case take it from the relation". I suspect it would be horrible.
Nor am I convinced that it's 100% universal practice - maybe in Germany but not the rest of the world. ;)
Reporter: dieterdreist
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 3.19pm, Saturday, 4th September 2010]
I noticed that potlatch doesn't display multipolygons correctly: it requires the tags for the relation (e.g. building=yes) to be attached to the outer way, which is clearly false. It doesn't interpret (display) them right when set inside the relation.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: