{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Esri/arcgis-osm-editor/issues/64","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Esri/arcgis-osm-editor/issues/64/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Esri/arcgis-osm-editor/issues/64/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Esri/arcgis-osm-editor/issues/64/events","html_url":"https://github.com/Esri/arcgis-osm-editor/issues/64","id":52182201,"number":64,"title":"barrier=retaining_wall as closed way not added to polygon table","user":{"login":"mboeringa","id":7635726,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7635726?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa","html_url":"https://github.com/mboeringa","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":20,"created_at":"2014-12-16T23:31:55Z","updated_at":"2015-01-14T09:19:35Z","closed_at":"2014-12-17T00:24:25Z","body":"Hi,\r\n\r\nAnother issue I discovered looking at my renderer results: barrier=retaining_wall as closed ways is not being added to the polygon table. I do see the same feature rendered as line in my render results, but not as closed polygon surface. I checked the below linked feature in JOSM, and it seems and validates fine there:\r\n\r\nhttp://www.openstreetmap.org/way/229579520\r\n\r\nThis may affect multipolygon relations with the same tag as well."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Esri/arcgis-osm-editor/issues/comments/69888939","html_url":"https://github.com/Esri/arcgis-osm-editor/issues/64#issuecomment-69888939","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/Esri/arcgis-osm-editor/issues/64","id":69888939,"user":{"login":"mboeringa","id":7635726,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7635726?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa","html_url":"https://github.com/mboeringa","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/mboeringa/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-01-14T09:19:35Z","updated_at":"2015-01-14T09:19:35Z","body":"> However, it doesn't resolve the issue completely.\r\n\r\n> It just so happens that it (the hole) is tagged as a special area in the surrounding forest. As a result, the hole does exist within the forest but is also overlapped but the feature describing the leisure park.\r\n\r\nI don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. This is not an issue, this is the expected behaviour, and how osm2pgsql probably treads this.\r\n\r\nAny \"inner\" members of a multipolygon relation with tags other than \"inner\", like **leisue=park**, should indeed be a \"feature-on-its-own\", and be added to the polygon table with osmSupportingElement=no to be visible.\r\n\r\nHowever, these features shouldn't be added twice to the polygon table, because they are a feature in its own right, and because they are a member of a larger multipolygon relation. We don't want to render the same feature multiple times just because of relationship membership. Potentially, there could be a unlimited number of relationship memberships for a single closed way with a certain tag set...\r\n\r\n\r\n"}}