Any update on this "proposal" or whether construction is ever starting? Or is it still *just* a proposal with no action being done?

Do not incorrectly map things for your renderer.

way/1215375059

This is NOT a building.

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.