# [OSM-dev] Mapnik/osm2pgsql regression.

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Sun Apr 1 11:16:20 BST 2007

```Robert
Using the same path both as a road and as the boundary to an area should be
allowed IMHO.  There are many cases where this is desirable.

There are three possibilities to consider:
1. a single way with both highway= and leisure= tags
2. two separate ways that share the same segments
3. two ways that run very closely parallel to each other

I currently use option 3.  It takes more effort than option 2 but avoids
issues with the direction of the segments (if two areas abutt then you would
need the segments to go in one direction for one area and the other
direction for the other area which is impossible).

If/when ways are made up of nodes rather than segments then option 2 will be
better than 3.

I can see how option 1 works for unlike things such as a road and a tramway,
but I can see how the same way can describe the path of a road and a park
unless a single road goes all the way round the park.  Do you have an
example?

(I suppose a park or a lake in the middle of a roundabout might qualify but
I guess this is not what you are referring to).

80n

On 4/1/07, Robert Hart <bathterror at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have occasionally tagged ways as for example both highway=residential
> and leisure=park (or landuse=village_green, etc.).
> This effectively creates a way that is both an area and a linear feature.
>
> In osmarender, this renders correctly, as all rules are applied to all
> ways.
>
> In mapnik, this previously only rendered the road, which was acceptable,
> as these tended to be fairly insignificant green areas in the grand scheme
> of things. I have now noticed that recently these ways have begun to show as
> the area and not the way.
>
> see for example:
> http://informationfreeway.org/?lat=6689672.7772&lon=-263251.45702&zoom=16&layers=0B0
>
> (and switch between mapnik and osmarender, or just zoom in and out in
> mapnik, unless it has rerendered since I mailed)
>
> Is this a bug in mapnik/osm2pgsql? or is this an example of incorrect(*)
> tagging?
>
> Rob
>
> [*] of course there is no such thing as incorrect tagging. this is anarchy
> right?
>
> --
> Robert Hart
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20070401/a4c26b06/attachment.html>
```