I believe there might be an issue with these complex multipolygons which is preventing osm2pgsql from handling them. Perhaps it is because nodes are shared between two outer rings?
However, I also want to note that it is not clear to me that the new mapping is correct. The new outer boundaries for the Superior National Forest are very complex and only cover a small portion of the land within the National Forest outer boundary: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11558095 Compare the official National Forest web map: https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=03a17ac9df1a4cd0bcc872ac996e7231 - this matches the older, simpler boundary that was in OpenStreetMap previously. Also see this map on the Forest website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5130373.pdf It appears that the new, complex relation is attempting to map what land is owned by the Federal government, rather than mapping the legal boundary of the National Forest. Is that correct? I believe this is a misinterpretation of the meaning of boundary=protected_area. See images at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/4198#issuecomment-684084296 for another example with the Manistee National Forest, which used to be mapped in a much simpler fashion and now has been re-made as many smaller parcels. - Joseph Eisenberg On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 4:22 PM Clifford Snow <[email protected]> wrote: > Paul, > I don't have a definitive answer for you, but rendering usually takes a > while for large areas. I would expect it to render when zoomed in but > wasn't able to see any rendering on a couple of spot checks. I did notice > that around islands either the forest or the island, are shifted. I would > recommend cleaning those up. > > Clifford > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 1:19 PM Paul White <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I recently added the (super complicated) Superior National Forest >> boundary to OSM, because I noticed it was missing. However, it refuses to >> render on the standard map, even though I ran it through JOSM's validator >> with no problems. (link to relation) >> <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11558095#map=6/48.422/-92.439> I >> don't think it's due to the amount of members, because the Tongass National >> Forest I added recently, with over 10,000 members, renders fine. And I know >> it's not due to the tags on the relation; they are standard to other >> national forests. >> >> If someone could look into it and see what's causing it to break, that >> would be great. >> >> pj >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > > -- > @osm_washington > www.snowandsnow.us > OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
