-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 819
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
bridge=yes renders over bridge=viaduct #644
Comments
That's a tagging mistake: 25381783 and the part below should be tertiary_link instead of tertiary. |
Not a tagging mistake like that math. (It should/could be a tert link but it is case that tert road is rendering over a primary and that is questionable) |
I have changed this to |
Thanks for the extensive test - you convinced me it's a bug. We don't intend to treat bridge=yes different from bridge=viaduct. Probably there is some inconsistency in the bridge SQL queries somewhere. |
yeah probably but I imagine it doesn't happen too often. mkoniecz, I have left this as a tertiary_link road for now as IMHO it should be that but I'll let you edit it as you see fit for your area. |
I rephrased title to "bridge=yes renders over bridge=viaduct" and summarized what happens in top comment. Thanks for an investigation. |
This is a problem with osm2pgsql. Roads with bridge=yes get 10 added to the z_order, btt roads with bridge=viaduct don't. Pull request #462 will solve this. |
Resolved by #626. |
Confirmed that the linked problem is solved. |
Note that linked problem was already solved by "I have left this as a tertiary_link road for now". |
[highway=tertiary + bridge=yes] renders over [highway=tertiary + bridge=viaduct]
[highway=tertiary] renders under [highway=tertiary]
Value of bridge key influences ordering what should not happen.
[highway=tertiary + bridge=viaduct] renders over [highway=tertiary_link + bridge=yes]
so original example is now not working
original report:
highway=tertiary renders over highway=primary
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.07349&mlon=19.94481#map=17/50.07349/19.94481
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/25381783
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/19843581
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: