Don't create ficticious things just for your renderer.

way/1215417739/history

You should review this page as you made several of the common pitfalls while editing this golf course:
leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

Please use more detailed changeset comments. What did you do, and why? "yuyftyfu" tells me absolutely nothing.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/142493302

Also split highways/freeways/roads so Max Height tags can be added correctly/easily.

There is no gigantic building in the middle of a neighborhood. This changeset is being reverted. Please only map what is actually on the ground.

changeset/142457845

You're continueing to map while making common errors. I encourage you to review the following to avoid making these type of errors in the future.

leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

I have gone ahead and resolved some of the issues for you.

You're continueing to map while making common errors. I encourage you to review the following to avoid making these type of errors in the future.

leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D*

'Access tags (Access=private) should be used instead where the paths still exist. You can read why "private" paths will not be deleted here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

changeset/142375690

Please close the notes you created when you updated this feature. Leaving notes open despite alreaxy resolving them is counterproductive to the community use of notes.

So if it is a forrest, yes, tree nodes should not be used. But in this case, you are trying to do something in detail, so rather than creating a bunch of tine "natural woods" areas the size of one tree, a node would suffice.

You probably read it here:
natural=tree#:~:text=species%3D*%20tag.-,Evolution%20of%20use,-Initially%20this%20tag

Nodes are acceptable in golf mapping, as long as it isn't excessive, such as mapping all the trees in a forrest as nodes, or using it where there are so many trees, you can't precisely (or close enough) place the individual nodes.

Also, welcome to OSM! Looking at the rest of the golf course, it seems you avoided most of the other common pitfalls when mapping a golf course. ( leisure=golf_course#:~:text=the%20building%20itself.-,Common%20mapping%20pitfalls,-Adding%20name%3D* ) You are even using multi-polygon relations! Though, there isn't always a need for it.

Rather than mapping trees as small circles, you should use nodes/points to map the trees.

'This changeset has been reverted. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the ways, even if they are private property. You can read more about why "private" features should not be deleted here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

changeset/142120543

'This changeset has been reverted. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the ways, even if they are private property. You can read more about why "private" features should not be deleted here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

changeset/142120543

'This changeset has been reverted. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the ways, even if they are private property. You can read more about why "private" features should not be deleted here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

changeset/142120498

'This changeset has been reverted. Access tags should be used instead of deleting the ways, even if they are private property. You can read more about why "private" features should not be deleted here:

osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property'

changeset/142120498

Features should not be named with descriptive tags, such as the cartpath. Also, be sure you are utilizing the correct tags.

Is there a reason you didn't continue the golfcart path as a bridge over the river/stream/water?

A couple things:
1) The landcovers should not partially overlap.
2) Features should not be deleted and readded. They should be adjusted.

You can read more here:
leisure=golf_course#:~:text=Overlapping%20green/fairway/rough%20polygons%20(see%20graphic%20below).

I have gone ahead and cleaned up the golf course to address the pitfalls.

Crap. That was unintentional. I was trying to get a wikipedia tag, but ID removed the wikidata tag.

I'll get it readded. They didn't have a wiki page, so I tried to create one, but it is still sitting in review, so the wikipedia tag isn't valid, most likely.

Also split up underpasses so maxheight=* tags can be applied appropriately in StreetComplete.

Sounds like you are mapping for the renderer, rather than mapping to ensure good data for the map overall. The OSM database does not know which is the "top layer" for landcover. In these cases. The fairway does not exist where the putting green is. Additionally, the fairway does not exist as a sharp triangle into the green.

ID will not directly report an issue, but areas should still not overlap, especially in the manner shown. They should either touch and not overlap, or the putting green should be wholly within the fairway. The fairway is not a sharp triangle into the putting green or a random square into it.

The land and area is mutually exclusive. It should be either a putting green or a fairway, but the small triangles and random areas where the fairways go into the green are not correct. Not to mention, it comes across sloppy since it is easier to just end an area where it looks right for a renderer (golf game), rether than doing it correctly.

Do not map for the renderer. I have politely advised you to stop partially overlapping landcover. If you have any questions on how to map golf courses correctly and in high quality, I suggest you reach out to User Seaside83.

Openstreetmap.org/user/Seaside83