tunnel under building drawn on top of building

[matkoniecz]

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.06808&mlon=19.91241#map=19/50.06808/19.91241

Note that tunnel not under building is drawn properly.

[matthijsmelissen]

What would be causing this? Perhaps the dashing is not visible enough? Or is it not drawn at all?

[mrwojo]

It's an instance of roads-casing under buildings under roads-fill. Why are highway=service tunnels not in the tunnels layer?

[matthijsmelissen]

Alright, I will fix that one.

[pauliuszaleckas]

Same problem here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/228833355

[matthijsmelissen]

Yes, that's the same problem. I fixed it already in my own repository, but I'm tackling a couple of related problems at the same time, and it need to be tested well, so it will still take some time before it can be merged. Thanks for reporting (and especially thanks for realizing it's the same problem, and not opening a new issue :)).

[krza]

Just looked for according bugs and found this. I drop an additional comment here in order to find out how the tags must be set to have a way covered by a building on a tile. Is the layer tag sufficient? Before it was.

Reference: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/51.02880/6.94070 (a few slim building bridges)

[matthijsmelissen]

Could someone confirm that the rendering indeed has changed when moving to CartoCSS?

[tyrasd]

No, I think it did not.

[krza]

That's interesting (cool tool, by the way). I was quite sure that it was different before. Else I would have probably tried to correct it somehow. Unfortunately I don't have a rendered tile left.

However ... the layer tag should be taken into account. Therefore it's made, is't it?

[matthijsmelissen]

The layer tag indicates how objects are layered in the real world. I think that does not necessarily correspond to how we want them to render on the map. For example, if a tunnel runs through a forest, we still want the tunnel to be rendered on top of the forest (otherwise tunnels in forests would be invisible).

I don't have a strong opinion on what is the best in this case. Drawing the roads under the buildings would perhaps give a more realistic look. On the other hand, for someone who is just interested in the roads, it might get unclear whether the roads end at the building (compare the roads on both sides of building MK), or run under it. Another problem is the case where roads run close along (but not under) a building on level=1. In that case, drawing the roads under the buildings would mean that the building would hide most of the road in low zoom levels, because roads are drawn much wider than their real size.

[richardbrinkman]

I agree that it's useful to somehow render a way which has a lower layer than a building, but it should not be drawn exactly like it would as if it would have a higher layer. Maybe the (in real world) invisble way should be rendered by a dashed line or grayed or something.
For example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.20925/6.86338 gives the impression that the way goes over the buildings, whereas the reality is that it goes through them.

[matthijsmelissen]

This has been solved in the meanwhile.