FYI, I've deleted your test fairway. I'm not sure what you're testing exactly. If you would like to share your testing goals, maybe I could help you understand why your test failed.

Please refrain from commentary like "pit of despair" when mapping. Stick to the facts of what is on the ground.

Also, please make sure you don't overlap things like fairways/roughs/greens. Thanks.

Hey, no worries. The wiki pages can be confusing at times, especially to new users.
The same concept applies across the board. If you were to map the outline of a backyard swimming pool and tag it “leisure=swimming _pool” or whatever the correct tag is, you wouldn’t also name it “Pool”. There’s a wiki page that talks about that, but I couldn’t find it for you.

Hi Richmond,

Just to let you know that golf course features shouldn't have names added like you've done on this course. Something like "Green #1" is represented with "ref=1" on the green and no "name" tag. I've gone through this course and removed places I found that were like this. Thanks.

Great. Thanks.

Sorry for the delay, this got buried in my inbox.

For this discussion, let's ignore what the definition of a "fairway" is and focus on what was mapped and how it was constructed and tagged.

If you look at the first hole for example, it is drawn with a polygon outlining the fairway and a polygon within that marking out the green. This is very common on golf courses today.

People will often think "let me tag the fairway polygon as "fairway" and the green as "green", but that isn't correct. By tagging the fairway, they are saying that EVERYTHING within that polygon is "fairway". But in reality, the green isn't part of what is considered the fairway, it's the green. The correct way to handle this is to not mark the outer polygon as "fairway", but instead create a multipolygon relation that says the outer polygon MINUS the inner polygon is what defines what is actually the fairway.

In terms of those objects, the outer polygon has no tags at all. The inner polygon is tagged as "green", and then the multipolygon relationship defines the outer minus the inner as fairway.

That is how it was constructed, but you came along and, I'm guessing, saw that the outer polygon wasn't tagged at all and thought you would "fix" it by marking the outer polygon as "fairway". It's a common mistake and is why I wrote that wiki page to help explain what to look for in the editor.

Does that make sense?

You have made a common error when you saw a fairway that looked like it didn't have a proper "Feature Type" defined and decided to add the fairway tag. The hole was already properly tagged, but was part of a relation of multiple objects known as a multipolygon. Please read this short wiki page where I've tried to explain what you are looking at and avoid making the mistake in the future. osm.wiki/ID_understanding_golf_course_relations Thanks.

Thanks Mark for going back and working on the course. We appreciate your willingness to come back and improve your work. I still see a lot of problems on the course, but they are more of a soft "sloppy" designation, and not a hard error designation.

I don't expect perfection from mappers, but you can see a lot of these elements are what I would call sloppy, lazy, or hurried. I looked at the 10th hole and saw that the green was much larger than what was on the ground and it connected up to the bunkers where it doesn't touch them in real life. The fairway as drawn stopped short of the green, when it really encompasses it with a fringe around the green.

Here are the before/after images for more of what we're looking for after I touched things up:

https://ibb.co/MyNNsv7r
https://ibb.co/pBbg5hvV

The problem with doing a quick mapping is that while it might get a course into OSM fast, it discourages people from doing high quality mapping because they see someone has already mapped it out so they are more likely to work elsewhere on the map. At least that's the impression that I get.

Thanks again for being open.

Some things to consider:

* there is an almost 90° angle at node/187157278, but the green is nearly an oval with very rounded corners. Picture yourself as a greens keeper mowing that green. You aren't making a sharp turn there, just a gradual curve.

* the tee at way/1547592574 is a perfect rectangle that could be described by 4 nodes, but you use 24 nodes to draw it all zig-zaggy.

* the green at way/1547579909 is massive and doesn't reflect the actual green. I might be using different imagery than you, but yours can't be *that* different.

* the fairway at the above green should go all the way around the green.

There is still a large amount of work to do on this course. If you aren't up to mapping it in greater, more accurate detail, it's better to leave it unmapped and have another mapper pick it up later.

My house is in a wooded area, so my first Stihl was a chainsaw. Followed a year or two later by a more powerful, longer chainsaw. Several more products have joined the family since then.

You can find out my origin story on my profile page: @b-jazz. No use repeating it here.

What kind of Stihl do you have?

FYI, I updated the area around the sandtrap so that the fairway and sandtrap weren't overlapping each other.

Good evening Ryan,

While the community appreciates your efforts in getting golf courses added to the map, you contributions here have so many problems that it would probably be better if they were scrapped and started from scratch.

You should start with the golf course wiki (leisure=golf_course) and read through that thoroughly before doing any further golf course mapping. Critical points would be that polygons should map what is clearly visible on the ground and not just guessed at. Along those lines, it is super critical that you don't overlap areas. Especially fairways and greens. Again, start by reading the wiki. Second, examine other course in the state to get an idea of how they do things.

Please let me know if you have any questions and I'll gladly help you out. Thanks.

This was actually incorrect (adding a fairway tag to an outer member of the relation). The relation is what defines the fairway, not the outer polygon. See osm.wiki/ID_understanding_golf_course_relations for an explanation.

Hi Mancininr3,

We appreciate people adding golf courses to the map, but there are a lot of problems with what you've contributed here. The greens rarely match the satellite imagery. The paths that you've traced around the various elements are very boxy with sharp angles that just don't exist in reality and your fairways and greens are overlapping in several areas. Can you remove all of this and start again from scratch please?

RE: way/1547128582, et al

When drawing golf course areas (i.e. greens, fairways, bunkers, tees, etc.), please be aware that the ways (lines) used to outline those areas must not cross over each other. Fairway outlines shouldn't cross over greens or bunkers or other fairways for example. Take a look at osm.wiki/File:Golf.png for an example of the "Wrong" way to map a fairway and a green, along with the correct way. There are some cases where a fringe exists around a green and you should draw the fairway outline completely around a green, leaving room for the fringe. Other times, the fairway and green butt up against each other. In that case the fairway and green should share the same nodes at the boundary between the two, and every node at the boundary needs to be shared, leaving no gaps. When drawing these shared nodes, editors like iD (built into openstreetmap.org) will "snap" to an existing node if you get close enough. If you have any questions about golf course mapping, feel free to reach out. Thanks.

I'll clean up the three fairways on this course that I see are wrong.

Actually, this is incorrect. It's the multipolygon relation that defines what is and what isn't a fairway. So for you to mark the outer bounds as fairway implies the ENTIRE inside (including the green) is a fairway and that's wrong.

See this wiki for more info: osm.wiki/ID_understanding_golf_course_relations

As mentioned in several other changesets, what you are doing here is incorrect. Please reach out if you don't understand why it's wrong to tag an outer member of a multipolygon as "fairway" when that tag belongs in the relation itself. See osm.wiki/ID_understanding_golf_course_relations and let me know if that doesn't help you understand.

Thanks

Hi Loren, a couple quick comments on this change to the map.

A golf course shouldn't be mapped as a relation of all of the elements in a leisure=golf_course tag. That tag is meant for the outline (possibly a multipolygon) of the golf course.

And holes shouldn't be named "Beautyberry Hole 1". Names are rare and only happen when each hole has a unique name. And hole numbers belong to the "ref" tag.

Thanks.

RE: way/1546748531, et al

When drawing golf course areas (such as greens, fairways, bunkers, tees, etc.), please be aware that the ways used to outline those areas can't cross over each other. Fairway outlines shouldn't cross over greens or bunkers or other fairways for example. If you could go back and clean up where you've made this mistake, that would be helpful. But more importantly, if you could stop from doing this in the future, it would be greatly appreciated. Please read the wiki for instructions and examples of how to better map golf courses: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls. If you have any questions about golf course mapping, feel free to reach out.

Isn't this on the other side of the road??