Author: bbauer
[Added to the original trac issue at 3.28pm, Tuesday, 5th July 2011]

I think both ways (painting the pitch above the area marks of the military area or the other way round) are reasonable and have their advantages. I think the actual way is more logical for the following reason:

The pitch is part of the area that has military landuse. As far as I know military areas are typically not accessible by the public and therefore also the pitch is not acessible. This is shown by the light red overlay and the red "strike-out".

If you would allow the pitch to berendered above the military style it would look like it was not part of the surrounding military area.

Author: flaimo
[Added to the original trac issue at 3.43pm, Tuesday, 5th July 2011]

i don't agree with that:
a) landuse describes something logical, leisure=pith describes something physical.
b) the style should be consistent. other areas don't draw over leisure=pitch, so why should landuse=military. for example landuse=allotments also count as private property, still leisure=pitch is drawn above the landuse.

Author: flaimo
[Added to the original trac issue at 4.41pm, Tuesday, 5th July 2011]

to precise point a: the kind of access should be determinated by the access tag on the actual element, not by the landuse below.

Author: math1985
[Added to the original trac issue at 7.56pm, Tuesday, 15th April 2014]

In this case, the pitch is actually part of the military landuse, so I think the current rendering is correct.

I will therefore close this ticket as wontfix.