Pedestrian tunnels and overpasses all render as overpasses

[jidanni]

Yes, another duplicate of #250, A gets rendered at B.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/314433650

Affects only Mapnik. The other layers are fine.

So after trying with layer=... on both items,
the user will give up and be forced to simply
remove the offending object.
Else how can the user show people in City Hall,
this map of City Hall? They certainly are not
going to use a map like that in their city.

Why can't underpasses be shown as dashed outlines, as
is normally done in cartography?

If all underpasses are rendered as overpasses, then users will be forced to tag the item being passed as being the underpass!

[dch0ph]

No, #250 is a closed (resolved) issue involving tunnels on ways. This is about the treatment of tunnel-like tags on areas. The correct mapping here is to split the pedestrian area at the building outline and apply covered=yes (building_passing only applies to ways).

Why can't underpasses be shown as dashed outlines, as
is normally done in cartography?

I doubt this is feasible in a general, automated fashion. As far as I'm aware, no renderer attempts to honour covered on areas. This is the realm of 3D renderers / manual cartography. Targetting a 3D renderer using e.g. building:part would the best option for fully realistic rendering.

The 2D representation of 3D relationships is fixed by design choices. OSM Carto (mapnik is used by most/all of the raster tiles renders on the OSM website) renders highway areas as part of the road layers, which are above buildings. This allows tunnels through buildings to be represented correctly.

Else how can the user show people in City Hall,
this map of City Hall? They certainly are not
going to use a map like that in their city.

Choose a different renderer - that's the beauty of OpenStreetMap! You could look at the Tracestack Topo render, which has chosen a distinctive, separate render for pedestrian areas which is below buildings. I'm not convinced that the result is better.

It is worth checking whether routing works correctly over the pedestrian area - most routers don't handle areas. You may need additional highway=pedestrian ways for routing, in which case you can replace the covered area with a building_passage.

TL;DR this looks like a won't-fix to me.

[imagico]

Yes, another duplicate of #250,

If you already believe this is a duplicate of existing issues why do you open it in the first place. That is destructive behavior, don't do that.

I won't comment more in detail on a duplicate issue. Many of the claims made are wrong - as @dch0ph already pointed out to some extent. This is not a duplicate of #250 - though the matters around it have been discussed at length in the past - #172 is a good starting point - as are issues referenced in #172 (comment). Ultimately this is a duplicate of #688.

To avoid misunderstandings by casual readers:

No practically available OSM based maps AFAIK handle such situations well. Most map styles either

• primitively render road polygons as landcover without any meaningful connection to road layering,
• use transparency to mash up drawing order or
• do both.

Closing as duplicate - If you want to bring up new ideas please comment in #688.