<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-17 10:43 GMT+02:00 Dave F. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davefox@madasafish.com" target="_blank">davefox@madasafish.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<div>On 16/09/2014 14:59, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2014-09-16 15:32 GMT+02:00 Dave F. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davefox@madasafish.com" target="_blank">davefox@madasafish.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="overflow:hidden">I find
it surprising something as arbitrary as size is used as
the defining factor. Comparing actual tags would surely
make more sense.<span></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
well, size surely has some correlation with importance. For
practical reasons it is generally working quite well to have
first render the bigger stuff and then render the smaller
stuff on top, because it leads typically to less covering.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
This, IMO, is lazy rendering & should be discouraged. To allow
the smaller stuff to display is one of the reason mutli-polygons
were developed.</div></blockquote><div><br><br><br></div><div>no, multipolygons have nothing to do with this issue. Multipolygons are there to cut holes into polygons or to build polygons from outer ways which are also otherwise used. Here they would not serve at all, as the park and the wood both occupy the same area (locally).<br><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Refer also to the layer tag which is disappointingly
under used by renderers. <br></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>yes, it is indeed underused, but it also has nothing to do with the issue here, as both objects are on the same layer.<br><br><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">In this particular case more detailed
mapping of the tree areas could solve it, e.g. split the wood
object at the cutting roads and waterways, but admittedly in
this case by looking at the bing aerial imagery it seems
indeed to be a continuity of trees on both sides of these.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
That's mapping incorrectly to suit the renderer &, for obvious
reasons, should be criticized. <br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>how would splitting an area be incorrect? It is just another representation of the same. There are infinite correct ways to representate the same object.<br><br></div><div>cheers,<br></div><div>Martin<br></div></div></div></div>