A part of a "landuse=forest" area where no forest is.
Is to be shown in normal map color.
- Comment: Would "Clearing" not be a more apt word for this feature? And although I'm not entirely sure how the relations are going to work yet, I presume it'd be possible to link two ways, one clockwise representing the forest, and another anticlockwise representing the clearing, by a relation to create this effect without needing it as a specific feature - i.e. it's the same effect as a "lake with island". Richard B 14:23, 29 September 2007 (BST)
Map what is there, not what is not there
Documenting an absence would need the thing that is lacking being mapped .. otherwise the thing lacking is unknown - it could be trees or shrubs or grass or mud. Then there is the problem of how far the thing that is there extends .. there can be a total lack of information. Warin61 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The general principle should be to map what is there, rather than what is not there. For an area of trees it should be mapped as a close way with natural=wood. If there are interior areas where trees don't exist then these would be mapped as closed ways and incorporated in a multipolygon relation with the role inner. This would then document the presence of trees, and there absence in this 'clearing'. Warin61 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)