Ramas <ies...@ramuno.lt> wrote: > From user point this relation is correct but from geos point - not.
Whatever your definition of OK may be. The Problem with multipolygons in their current form ist that there is no definition of a correct multipolygon AFAIK. As far as your Example is concerned this is (at least) marked as broken in OSM Inspektor: http://tools.geofabrik.de/osmi/?view=multipolygon&lon=25.95446&lat=55.55431&zoom=18&overlays=invalid_geometry_hull,duplicate_ways,intersections,intersection_lines,ring_not_closed_hull,ring_not_closed,unconnected_end_nodes,touching_inner_rings_hull,touching_inner_rings,role_mismatch_hull,role_mismatch,duplicate_tags_hull,duplicate_tags,multipolygons_type_is_boundary,type_is_boundary,ways,role_markers,way_end_nodes,way_nodes Sven -- Trotz der zunehmenden Verbreitung von Linux erfreut sich der Bär, und - dank Knut - insbesondere der Eisbär, deutlich größerer Beliebtheit als der Pinguin. (Gefunden bei http://telepolis.de/) /me is giggls@ircnet, http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
