On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The problem with that of course, as Warin mentioned, is what would it > hypothetically render as - grass / sand / rock / scrub etc etc? > If you simply define an area that is absent of woodland with no tags defining what it is, then it renders as an absence of woodland. It is a hole in the woodland that renders the same as whatever is outside the woodland, i.e., bare map. It's only if you add tags to the inner area that define it as grass/sand/whatever that it renders as anything other than "bare map." Or if there's a larger area enclosing the wood (such as a nature reserve) then the hole will (I haven't tested that, so make it "should" rather than "will") still render the same as outside the wood. I've poked holes in a wood to handle clearings, and poked holes in woods for ponds and quarries. It all works fine. If you don't trust me then give it a quick try. It's a matter of minutes to add a relation to the wood, transfer the tags from the wood to relation, then add one of the clearings to the relation and see what happens. If you hate the result then it's only a few more minutes to manually revert. It would be really nice if we had a sandbox, but we don't. In this particular case it's no big deal to give it a quick try. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
