Solutions of the type proposed (holes in upper scraps so that scrap below is visible) have their place, and I have done similar myself, using the sorts strategies discussed. Nowadays I am reluctant to do such things, as I place a high value on scraps that are as versatile as possible. The danger of ‘holey’ scraps is that if they are later (or simultaneously) used in maps that do not have the lower level passage displayed, they end up with an inappropriate white (non-passage) space in a location where there clearly should be passage (ie the pit). Similarly, scraps with holes cut-out wreak havoc with the loch models. So you can apply trickery to achieve a perfect particular output, often to the significant detriment to other outputs. Perhaps a way forward would be a feature whereby a passage fill area be defined that is completely transparent to show any scraps that happen to pass below it. And if it is presented in an output that has no scrap shown below it, it takes on the specified map-fg colour that otherwise applies. This kind of a passage fill would avoid the workarounds discussed upsetting model outputs, and avoid the need for complicated workarounds. So, is an ‘area open’, referring to a ‘window’ in a scrap through which a scrap behind or below is visible unobstructed, desirable? Is it possible? Bruce