<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">28 Jun 2019, 02:29 by forums@david-woolley.me.uk:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div style="16px" text-align="left">On 28/06/2019 00:56, Warin wrote:<br></div><blockquote>that are also holes in them (they usually omit making the hole, so an added car parking area will be covered by trees until I notice<br></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">I believe that is a renderer bug. Generally smaller, fully nested, areas should cut out holes in incompatible backgrounds without explicit relations.<br></div></blockquote><div style="16px" text-align="left">It is not a renderer bug. At least in case of OSM Carto, where tree-covered area is deliberately<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">working in this way to indicate missing multipolygons. And to support case of tree covered areas of <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">various types.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Missing explicit holes are not a biggest mapping quality issue. but it is better to <br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">make it explicit, in almost all cases "is it incompatible area" is not actually obvious and the<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">same across world. Also processing such data with implicit holes is unreasonably hard.<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left"><br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">Though I am still not a fan of using multipolygons where there are no holes in<br></div><div style="16px" text-align="left">areas.<br></div> </body>
</html>