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This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021.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: Seoman [Submitted to the original trac issue database at 9.19am, Thursday, 18th August 2011]
Under a place, tagged highway=pedestrian and area=yes (Way:47214425), goes a motorway in a tunnel, tagged with layer=-1 (Ways: 23718483 and 23718482).
In Mapnik the oneway arrows of the motorway are rendered but not the tunnel itself. (In Osmarender the area covers both, I'm not sure about the intended rendering there, so I'm assigning this only to Mapnik).
Shouldn't the tunnel be rendered like underneath the parking lot just south the place?
Author: wolfbert [Added to the original trac issue at 9.45pm, Monday, 12th March 2012]
Replying to [comment:1 Ldp]:
Same problem here (see [http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.2358&lon=16.411665&zoom=18&layers=M tunnel under pedestrian area from lower left to upper right corner]). Direction arrows and traffic lights can be seen, but not the outline of the highway.
BTW, in that same example (lower left corner), a building is rendered correctly on top of a pedestrian area even without layer tags.
Reporter: Seoman
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 9.19am, Thursday, 18th August 2011]
Under a place, tagged highway=pedestrian and area=yes (Way:47214425), goes a motorway in a tunnel, tagged with layer=-1 (Ways: 23718483 and 23718482).
In Mapnik the oneway arrows of the motorway are rendered but not the tunnel itself. (In Osmarender the area covers both, I'm not sure about the intended rendering there, so I'm assigning this only to Mapnik).
Shouldn't the tunnel be rendered like underneath the parking lot just south the place?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.430981&lon=6.773503&zoom=18&layers=M
Note 1: Might be connected to or double of #1971.
Note 2: The motorway has been covered with the place just recently, not visible on older satellite pictures
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: