Why did you just delete all these areas?
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149933043

Were rails ever installed?

Based on the note on this way;
"railway graded but never operated", it sounds like just dirt was moved but rails were never built... If that's the case, then wouldn't it be planned, and not abandoned?

This is not how you map trees. Do not map them as random triangles tagged as golf=rough. This changeset has been reverted in part or full.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149869300

This is not how you add trees.

Changeset reverted

golf mapper was reported to DWG. Sock puppet and poor edits.

changeset reverted. user reported to DWG

Changeset reverted

this is not how you add trees.

Changeset reverted

changeset reverted in part or full

changeset reverted

Descriptive names should not be used

Changeset reverted in part or full

Do not wrap areas back upon themselves to simulate a hole.

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

This is not how you add trees...

Also, this is NOT how you add trees... I have a feeling this is an alternate account as a result of your other account being blocked.

Do not partially overlap areas.

Please review the following webpage to avoid your edits being reverted:
leisure=golf_course#:~:text=Overlapping%20green/fairway/rough%20polygons%20(see%20graphic%20below).

Do not partially overlap areas.

Please review the following webpage to avoid your edits being reverted:
leisure=golf_course#:~:text=Overlapping%20green/fairway/rough%20polygons%20(see%20graphic%20below).

This changeset has been reverted in part or full. Item is movable and after further discussion, I am wrong. Portable features should not be mapped since they can move, however, just because it is "private" doesn't really mean it shouldn't be mapped.

changeset/149839258

I do request that better changeset comments be used to explain why they are being deleted, and not just "private."

I was thinking of it as no different from a pool, which we would map.

But thinking about the portability side, I do concur it shouldn't be mapped. I disagree on the "private" argument, but the portability, I 100% agree.

I am going to revert my revert.