I've previously traversed this stretch of way several times, and am somewhat familiar with the area.

Correction of changeset/114150899

Joined the footpath to the highway instead of the landuse=residential boundary.

Seems that a blundered by joining the footpath to the landuse=residential boundary, rather than the highway. D'oh 🤦‍♂️.

Probably a little too cold & tired, at the time.

Corrected in changeset/118383850

▪︎much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
▪︎what makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

Maybe a report needs to be opened at http://github.com/hotosm/tasking-manager instead, to simply request them to import the newer version of iD (and to automate future imports).

But, it's late (23:35) and brain says it's time to sleep.

“version 2.20.2 when we're on 2.20.4 suggesting a stale browser application cache”

Or not, having noticed that
host=https://tasks.hotosm.org/projects/12003/map/

So, may be that HOTOSM simply haven't updated their version.

“I'll open a ticket at iD's repo.”

http://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/9028

“change set uses version 2.20.2 when we're on 2.20.4”

👍. Eagle-eyed SekeRob strikes again.

“stale browser application cache.”

Depends what the caching-related HTTP headers have declared. If the browser has been told that it may use the resources for a year+ (without re-checking with the server), then (strictly) the cache isn't stale (even though the data within is outdated, in this case).

Which, from a Web-dev PoV, indicates that this wasn't thought about in iD's implementation (or possibly how it's been deployed on the host site; which goes back to how iD has been implemented).

Users shouldn't have to (know (how) to) flush their HTTP cache (think about those behind shared caches, administered by someone else, which they can't flush).
Even if they did know; when are they supposed to, or how would they know when to (without being expected to watch the GH repo)?
Having to manually flush cache is a workaround or troubleshooting step. Shouldn't be part of normal operations. Caching (done correctly) is good. Flushing an entire cache (adversely) affects other sites.

The naive retort (of developers) would be ‘how are we supposed to know how to set the caching headers, since we don't know when we'll release a new version?’.

Well, firstly, regularly scheduled releases (say, monthly) wouldn't be a bad idea.

However, the strategy which is commonly used with images is (in simplified terms) to set long-lived caching headers on each image. If there's need to change which image is used, then point to a another one at a different URL, with the HTML set to have relatively short-lived caching headers.
If a script is selecting images, then give it the conditional logic to figure out which image is the right on, among a set.

For iD, there could be a small file for checking version, which has headers declaring it to be cached only for somewhere between an hour and a day (I'll let the server admins determine that), and then differently-versioned files of iD sit at different URLs (perhaps use the version-number in the URL), which each have long-lived caching headers.
The version file points to the current stable version (or uses a mini-language, or a terse well-known language (JSON?), to specify each of stable, previous, beta testing, development, or whatever the developers / admins wish).

If things are done sensibly, then it should be possible to invoke different versions of iD (for testing purposes) by hacking the URL.

Besides easily testing for regressions, keen users could also easily test beta / development / nightly versions.

I'll open a ticket at iD's repo.

Correction from changeset/118196511 in which I forgot to tag the substation also as a building.

Forgot to tag as building; corrected in changeset/118337917

Sigh. Although your response is more of the same, traction is slowly being made. What I find sad is that it takes so much time & effort to get even close to straight answers to simple & obvious questions. Amid much irrelevant noise & evasion (& objection to being called out on such).

“I'm not here to ignore constructive advice given by you and/or BCNorwich.”

Yet, by presuming to decide what is and isn't constructive, you're being very selective about which feedback / questions you take seriously versus reject. Thus, you're ignoring the ones you dislike.

To use your own reasoning; they're intended to be constructive, therefore they are constructive.
Maybe now you might start to see the flaw (logical fallacy) in that thinking.

“I jumped to conclusions with BCNorwich with concern to tagging sand traps correctly. I mistook tagging surfaces with naming the feature.”

Some honesty, at last! Refreshing.

Yet, I (and many others) aren't interested in apology, but quality data & changesets.

“very naive so very early in my use OSM”

While correct, I'm not really interested.

The problem was how you responded to perfectly valid feedback & questions. Not only attitude & hostility, but failing to answer basic questions in order for others to verify such substantial changes.

You can make any claims you wish, but they count for nothing without demonstrable due diligence, such as citing sources.

If you want to be taken seriously, and not be written off as a loon, vandal, or troll, then answering such questions (or, better, including them in your changes via appropriate tagging) should be a priority & simple to do.

“apologised for this”

Again, not interested.

Mistakes happen. What counts is how they're handled.

I suggest reading http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/crybaby.html
Several entries / sections are applicable.

The way to convince other mappers is not appeals to emotion, but with facts & (meta)data.

If you had given that in the beginning, sans attitude, then had those been satisfying (i.e. good answers), that would very likely have been the end of the discussion.

Yet, you chose to do differently, to then whine about the consequences.

If you're so concerned about apologising, then perhaps extend one to BCNorwich.

Once again; compare Wikipedia, or any other collaborative project (software development comes to mind). If you made changes that indicated that some notable person had died, without citing any source, others are going to question that (which isn't assuming, else they'd simply revert; they're avoiding assuming by asking). If you then gave some speech about how you're sure that it's right … well, that's no better than a creationist believing that the Earth is <10,000 years old. Especially if done with hostile attitude.
Instead, if you cited a credible news article, or a statement made by their staff; well, that's different. It's then about the quality of the source, rather than you and your claims.

While insisting on keeping it about you and your claims, both of those are open to questioning. That's not an ad hominem (even if your feels are hurt). Matters like your (in)experience, are then entirely relevant.

A recurring theme is your assumption that your good intentions are sufficient. Firstly, that's just another claim, which others can't verify (because you won't supply the information asked for). Besides, even if that is indeed the case; how can you be sure that your actual changes are sound (in light of such inexperience, and (e.g.) evidently not knowing how a bunker / sand trap should (not) be tagged)?

You're conflating distinct things, then becoming upset / offended because of feeling that your intentions are under attack.

If your intentions are as you claim, then simply demonstrate that with your actions (by answering questions, sans bullshit).

This applies to everyone, without exception. Regardless of experience.

When I was a newbie, I made some minor mistakes (though I was cautious & started small). I welcomed feedback (to learn, to improve). I even sought review of the changes I was unsure about (e.g. the first time I was adding a type of feature). Even if the response was confirmation, it was useful / valuable.
I certainly didn't assume that because I meant well that it was somehow impossible for me to fuck it up in several ways.

Part of why this matters, besides accurate (& verifiable) representation of what's on the ground, is that the data must be machine-readable; not just in format, but also semantics. Software is stupid, and needs things very orderly.

This is a major reason why these are established conventions for how to map a given feature.

So, even if you're not (intentionally) misrepresenting a bunker (or whatever), if it were merely a node (instead of a way marking the outline), or tagged from a golf-centric perspective of hazard=bunker; while it may be apparent to a human what you *meant*, it won't be to software.

So, often abstract distinctions matter (I can give examples, having encountered many during surveying).
Sometimes it's better to not map something, than to do so wrongly (in which I'm including dubious tagging).

Part of the need for consistency & predictability (for software) is in order to render the same data in various ways. Hence the value of the abstraction, rather than editing images directly. Among other reasons.

Re no exceptions; when I was somewhat less of a newbie, I happened to notice that a very experienced (but non-local) mapper had made some (building-related) changes in my local area, but which didn't quite match reality.
I questioned this, because of being familiar with the area, and having made a point of walking past to see for myself.
While they were buildings, they were not (all) the type he had tagged them as.
Turns out that he assumed their type based upon low-resolution imagery and what was common in other (significantly different) places (nearer to his location).
Thus, I (as the newbie) had to point out (to the experienced mapper) that his assumptions didn't apply here (for a bunch of reasons), and to trust outdated & low-res imagery was questionable, and that guessing building-type (rather than tagging building=yes) from aerial imagery which only shows rooftops is asking for trouble.
Part of why building=yes would've been better, is that it would show up as a quest in StreetComplete (and likely some QA tools). But, his setting a specific type from mere assumption, would mean that it may not have been fixed for a long time.
Based on the facts (including that my source trumped his (in multiple ways), and I had relevant local (contextual) knowledge), he accepted the point, and that his assumptions weren't justified. All without fuss.

Why? In large part because we both wanted to ensure accuracy, and that we argued over facts & evidence, rather than mere claims or otherwise making it some soap-opera drama.

His experience didn't counter the facts, both evidence (competing sources) and because he had clearly made an unfounded assumption).
My relative inexperience wasn't in question, because I didn't simply plead that he trust me; I cited information which made my experience an irrelevant factor.

Compare arguing about access restrictions on a road. An easy way to settle it (or attempt to reach consensus) is to take photos of the signage. Then it's about what the signs mean, rather than anything about the photographer as an individual.

So far, you assert that your intentions are the source. That doesn't count. It also means that you (personally) are up for scrutiny.

“You mentioned how bad practice it was to have an enormous bounding box. I agreed and apologised for this. I have since checked any change sets to ensure they are not covering a wide area.”

So why keep bringing it up?

Why not apply the same to other aspects?

Why waste so much time evading simple questions which were asked without the ill intent you ascribe to them (funny how you have nothing but purity, but everyone else is nasty and out to get you; to then complain when this is remarked upon).

“This instance that covers half of Africa, Spain and UK was totally an accident and unintentional.”

OK. Mistakes happen.

The important part, and difference, here, is that instead of merely saying that, or being dismissive / hostile, yet continuing to generate huge bounding boxes, is that your subsequent changesets (from what I've noticed, I've not made a point of scrutinising all of them) are small (limited to the area of a single golf course).

If your changesets continued to span large areas, one should be unsurprised that they continued to receive attention (read: ire) from other mappers. One, because of persistence, two because they would appear in the list of any mapper within the bbox who was monitoring his local area (as many do), when no changes were made that are local to him.
The latter is how I became aware of this changeset.

Instead of bleating about your perception that your virtues have been impuned, apply the same philosophy to other aspects (viz; cite your sources).

“I am very grateful to you for bringing it to my attention.”

Good for you. Demonstrate it, then.

NO, not by sucking up, ass kissing, or other irrelevancy. By addressing the points raised, without evasion.

If, perhaps, you don't understand the questions, or how to answer them, then say so, and/or ask clarification questions (or, better, do background reading, such as of the wiki) until you do.

Bleating that you feel attacked, doesn't wash. It simply raises more red flags.

When in a position of digging yourself into a hole, then instead of digging deeper, one should stop digging.
Digging deeper isn't the way out (regardless of other reasons; because it's not addressing the issue or answering the questions).

Again, complaining about the consequences of choosing to dig deeper …

“It's simple. I play all of these courses on a regular basis. Just the other day I was at Aldenham Golf Club. Somewhere I've been before many times.”

Well holy shit; progress at long last!

Thankyou for finally coming close to answering such a simple question.

“Just the other day I was at Aldenham Golf Club. Somewhere I've been before many times. So I went on and mapped out all the features”

Right.

At the time you were editing, were you on the course (or had been earlier that day), or had several days elapsed between golfing (or otherwise seeing the course) and mapping it?

I'm going somewhere with this, as you'll see if you follow along (by assuming good faith on the part of others).

“I went on and mapped out all the features carefully.”

So you keep claiming, yet won't provide the means to verify.

Maybe you really did, but how does anyone else know that?

Maybe you did so flawlessly from this as yet unknown source, but that source may be dubious / questionable / objectionable (either due to draconian copyright (think Google Maps), or due to lacking quality (which includes recentness; it could be outdated), or both).

You may not have intended some oversight, but that doesn't mean there were none.

Regardless; until you cite a specific source (or multiple) which is external to you, then you leave the only thing available for scrutiny as yourself (which you don't like).

If you cite your source(s), then others don't need your assurances; they can examine for themselves.
If several agree, then that's consensus-building.

Compare how scientific consensus is reached. Scientists have to show all their working (methods, data, analysis, and how they reached their conclusions). Anyone claiming that he should simply be trusted, won't be taken seriously.

Else, imagine we're out on the course, along with others. Then imagine that, on my scorecard I had marked that I got a hole-in-one for all 18 holes.
Would you unconditionally accept this, just because I saw so? I doubt it.
Besides being unlikely, upon questioning the others in the group they also doubt my claim.

Or, even simpler; “I once caught a fish this big {spreads arms wide}”.
Would you not want to see the fish, or at least a photo, or talk to others who may have seen it themselves? I would hope so.

Might I suggest reading Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World.

“Some of the sand bunkers/traps were misaligned, some tee boxes were missing, not all the paths had been correctly labelled and some were not aligned with the actual path and so on.”

Compared to what (source), exactly?

Else, how did you reach those conclusions?

“woodpeck_repair example of blocking users. He is jumping the gun somewhat in assuming”

Do tell what you're basing that on, else your evidence for your accusation.

What was he assuming, exactly?

He's a member of the Data Working Group (you can look that up). One doesn't become a member easily or quickly.
You, as a newbie & who evades accountability, questioning him, is very arrogant indeed.

Otherwise, cite your evidence that he's wrong.

Maybe the reverts were of a mapper who refused to backup his claims & assertions. The burden of proof isn't on others.

Another relevant example, recently, was someone making changes based solely on the suggestions of a QA tool.
Those were reverted.
Why? Well, that's misuse of the tool, which can't count as the (only) source.
The changes, thus, counted as guesswork (at the least; perhaps also automated / mechanical, because of how many elements and how far they spanned (we're talking a good chunk of a continent)).
Some may have been correct. That's not the point. Those would've been a happy accident.
The point was that the changes were without source, not rigorous, not verified or verifiable, and couldn't be considered valid.
There were & are proper ways of doing things. They weren't followed.

The mapper was neither highly experienced, nor inexperienced (except in failing to treat the QA tool as a non-source).

Part of the point of reversion, was that poor quality changesets (regardless of the changes within), are to be discouraged.
Same for automated / mechanical changes which weren't discussed or otherwise approved by the local community, PRIOR to being submitted.
It's not about the correctness of the changes in any particular case, but that it's high-risk, error-prone, and bad practice for a variety of reasons (from real-world, hard-learned instances).

Another notorious example (which caused the rules to be refined) was an over-keen individual who was making broad (both element count and bbox area) changes (which he deemed necessary & good) mostly around typos & deprecated tag values. He, too, ignored & dismissed other mappers, while persisting (instead of engaging & awaiting resolution).
Point was his approach. Any correctness was an accident. All of it was reverted.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

“Our sole intention is to accurately map all the golf course features.”

Firstly; ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. More specifically, by the unintended consequences amid blinkered focus on the desired outcomes, while ignoring what might go wrong or how. Usually as a result of the Dunning-Kruger effect. ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.’ (consider that you've started out doing ambitious things, rather than with basics & small features (to minimise risk) until you'd grasped various principles.

Again, good for you. How would anyone else know your intentions (other than assuming by the quality (or lack thereof) of your changesets?

Accurate compared to what?

More of the same (‘just trust us’), which is irrelevant.

It would be quite a feat for a newbie to make such extensive changes, without flaw. Scrutiny is warranted.

Plus, part of it is pattern-matching, in terms of vandalism.
Vandals often made sweeping (or otherwise careless) changes, without satisfactory metadata (seemingly deliberately, in hopes of remaining unnoticed), and either don't respond to questions or give evasive / vague non-answers.

So, when you come along, making large changes, with incomplete metadata, and are hostile to honest & benign enquiries; well, that's a whole Chinese parade of red flags.

To persist, only reinforces suspicion.

If, instead, in earnest, you addressed the concerns & feedback (sans ego or other BS), to a satisfactory extent (which should be easy & simple if everything's honest, above board, ship-shape & Bristol fashion), and welcomed review (if it were me, then I'd be asking if I fucked up, and really wanting to know, both to fix it and to learn better in future).

Ultimately, trust is earned. Start by demonstrating that you're not a bull in a porcelain shop, that you give a shit about OSM (not merely for the sake of golfing software) & community, are willing to learn & take feedback from others (because even among experienced mappers, discussion is how consensus is reached for, e.g., how to map a new type of feature (examples include: amenity=charging_station & (very recently) amenity=parcel_locker) as the means to establish conventions; this involves questioning each other re how something is / should be tagged, to determine the best (least-bad) way; it's also imperfect, because sometimes changes to conventions have been needed; the diet: schema (to separate it from cuisine=*) is an example), and are gonna be at least as attentive to metadata as you claim to be for changes to map data itself.

There is, after all, a correlation between sloppy metadata, and sloppy changes to the map.

Distinguish yourself, via action.

Recall the example above, of my questioning be much more experienced mapper; I did so (as a relative newbie) because the blunder was quite so obvious (and that my relative inexperience shouldn't matter, given the facts). For something trivial; I would more likely assume that someone with much experience had his reasons or otherwise knew what he was doing.

You can claim, all you like, that you're unlike vandals, or the otherwise clueless. But, until you demonstrate it, you're just shouting into the wind.

It really is simple, just like you say.

Don't be the asshole barging into an establishment, immediately dictating how things should be different. Instead, observe first. See how the group operates. Learn.

Arguing to discard the rules, before learning the rules (and why they exist) is disingenuous and entirely transparent. It won't be taken seriously.

What will be? Due diligence, demonstrating your claims & integrity, answering questions, considering feedback, doing quality work (which includes metadata of changesets), being accountable, assuming good faith of others.

Otherwise, your fate will eventually be similar to the other examples I've cited.

That may seem unreasonable to you, but the folks who have to do the cleanup are unpaid volunteers. So, I can hardly blame them for having little tolerance for nonsense (which includes ignoring rules). They tend to not argue (or even discuss as long as I have), and will often revert and sometimes impose sanctions (temporary block, or perma-ban).

The goal isn't fuzzy feels, but quality work (which includes metadata, because you're not the only mapper). Blocking a problem user (who doesn't coöperate), solves the problem (which includes disruption to other mappers).

If you're as virtuous as you claim, then why is such explanation necessary?

“Plain and simple. It don't see how that is harming OSM.”

This misses the point, entirely.

Harm or improvement is determined by consensus (from review & verification), not intent.

How are you ensuring that you're avoiding all harm (consider that there may be gotchas that you're not yet aware of)?

I'd like to be more specific, I really would, but until you're willing to state your source (if there actually is one), that's impossible.

“If OSM is against golf courses being properly marked out, labelled and tagged then fine. Remove the ability to label golf course features”

It's not. This is disingenuous and misses the point.

It's up to you to demonstrate that your work is sound, not others.

As for removing the ability to make changes; that's what account sanctions are for. For individual users, rather than all.

I also suggest you read osm.wiki/Any_tags_you_like to understand the folly of trying to prevent mapping of any particular feature (except by policy; there are a few forbidden types, mostly relating to law (think military installations, in some nations) & privacy (of individuals, such as who lives in which house, their phone number, and similar)).

The possibility of free-input textual tagging is one of OSM's strengths, in many ways (to elaborate would be a whole essay).
However, it's not an excuse to ignore conventions (without an exceptionally good reason, which one is willing to argue).

You have much to learn, padawan.

“I am here in good faith.”

Everyone claims that.

What evidence have you provided, of your claim, that others should believe you?

To be clear (given your propensity to jump to conclusions); that's not to say that you're here in bad faith. It's an unknown.
Being questioned is actually an act of extending benefit-of-the-doubt (because newbies make innocent mistakes, and need guidance), and opportunity to demonstrate credibility, earn trust, opportunity to learn and otherwise receive help (even if that's simply a pointer to relevant reading), and establish social ties with your fellow local mappers.

Shitting all over that, isn't smart.

Some folks will remember early misconduct, and be unwilling to help in future (even when you ask for it). Why should they risk being on the receiving end of more obnoxious attitude? They have better things to do with their time.

“I[,] like many other golfers[,] am not here to vandalise OSM.”

So then show that, by giving straight answers to simple questions.

Further assertions aren't convincing. Answering the questions might be.

Stop digging a deeper hole; it just means that you have further to climb to reach the surface.

You do understand how the likes of reputation works in social groups?

Consider; while you may be convinced of that, how does anyone else tell the difference (when you won't cite mots source)? Why should they waste hours on someone who might be another troll?
When the individual had a terrible attitude (typical of a vandal), why should benefit-of-doubt be extended?

When he refuses to answer, and objects to, questions giving opportunity to provide info, and make a good (as opposed to unknown / natural) impression, why should wild assumptions about good faith be made?

“You and your fellow OSM experts are making a lot of accusations about people based purely on their OSM mapping knowledge.”

What accusations?
Questions aren't accusations (they'd be statements).

Besides; no. What's being judged is the work (including lacking metadata), conduct, evasiveness of legit questions, the various red flags being thrown up, and the like.

If you feel that you lack knowledge, then learn.
I recall you seeing fit to judge re maths knowledge.
Smells like butthurt, to me.

I strongly suggest that you consider the accusations you've made of others, and how that's your own projection.

I, for one, can't take hypocrites at all seriously.
Those who lack self-awareness have no business judging others.

“I'd quite happily go through any of my change sets with anyone on here and justify all of the additions.”

So why not do that?

Why all this song & dance around the matter, instead of straight answers?

Why the hostility to those who intended to help?

“Why? Because I know them to be accurate and faithful to what's actually there on the ground!”

Irrelevant to anyone but you.

How did you reach such a conclusion? WHAT'S YOUR SOURCE?! 🤦‍♂️

More of the same becomes not just tedious, but boring, dull, and akin to an insect insisting on being swatted instead of remaining unnoticed.

“most of the courses I've looked at on OSM, where other users have marked on features have not been anywhere near as accurate with their spline/node points as I have been.”

Yet again (dear reader, please notice this recurring theme), based on or compared to what (reference)?

Sigh. Repeated assertion of the same claims doesn't add validity or credibility. If anything, it does the opposite.

“I really don't feel like I have anything to defend.”

It's sad that you still see it in such terms. That's on you, though.

Again with the unfounded assumptions.

I asked a straight question; why won't you give a straight answer?

“how I feel about this whole back and forth”

Is irrelevant. Feels DO NOT trump facts.

Your choice of analogy is revealing.

Less biased ones would include:
▪︎rearranging someone else's garden furniture, then being asked why (and baulking at the question, on the claim that you only had good intentions and were helping)
▪︎being in the street, when you observe one group chasing another (angrily); you insist on helping one group (at the hindrance of the other), yet when asked why you inserted yourself with such confidence into a situation you didn't know, to help one but not the other, you treat the questioner as an idiot who is accusing you of harm, because of course your decision was the right one (yet, the questioner was asking to understand your decision, which you failed to explain amid your vitriol, which rather suggests that you don't understand your own decision, or can't see past the end of your nose; either way, says much more about you than he)

I suggest you examine (in a way which doesn't involve blaming others) why you feel that way, and got the reaction you did.
Note that you've STILL not answered the question(!)

I swear, sometimes I wish I had a large soft-foam mallet, the use of which increased IQ, so that I could repeatedly bop needy cases (as determined by my frustration with their foolishness) upon their cranium, both for their own sake & benefit, and the sanity of those around them.
But, words will have to suffice.

“clearly what I have done is a good deed in good faith.”

Maybe to you (but, so what?), but not to others.

If it were clear, then I wouldn't have to keep asking for your damn source.

If you had acted in good faith, then you would have cited your source days ago, and not exhibited such hostility & toxic attitude to other mappers.

I think you need to check your assumptions.

“you're making all kinds of accusations totally out of context.”

Again, what accusations?
For that matter, what context?

The relevant context is that you've been asked for your source, and repeatedly failed to supply it.

Instead, you merely repeat your previous assertions.

Sounds exactly like a politician. Hopefully you know how little trust their choices earn them.

“Its like I'm a random stranger walking down the road”

Covered above, by more representative analogies.

“I simply tried to improve a situation.”

Again, intent versus outcome. Ideally they match, but that's not trivial or a given.

If your concern was constructively contributing to OSM … source?

I tire of repeating the same point, but apparently it's necessary to demonstrate how often you merely repeat your same assertions without adding anything, while evading the question which actually matters.

“using the Ariel maps for alignment”

Well, SHIT! Now we're finally going somewhere (rather than in circles).

Hallelujah!

I'm gonna assume (yes, despicable me) that you actually mean aerial *imagery* (since they're not maps).

Unless you really do mean something else. If so, please specify.

Follow-up: WHICH aerial imagery?

Yes, it matters. Yes, I'm going somewhere with this, too. Kindly follow along, padawan; you'll learn something.

“Same with golf course features I've been editing.”

No, not without baseless (self-serving) assumptions. Not when you persist in your refusal to engage honestly, in good faith (by actually answering questions).

I acknowledge that you may perceive yourself that way (again, good for you, and how self-serving), but since you're in denial about matters relating to what's in your head, I'm not gonna bite other than to state that I'm interested only in reality.

“It's really that simple for me.”

How wonderful for you. Maybe stay inside your head (or the sand you've buried it in), if you're so disinterested in reality.

In all this, did you consider that I'm doing as you describe of yourself (without feeling the need to state it); yet, doing it on behalf of something other than myself.
Again, funny how you just happen to assume the best of yourself, but the worst of others. Says plenty.

Apparently you don't subscribe to the golden rule, yet expect others to when dealing with you.
You're not a special snowflake.

“Please do tell me what I can do to improve my golf course edits.”

I, and others, have, repeatedly. Yet, you object (with scorn).
It's not for lack of being told. Try re-reading previous messages. Why should I repeat myself?

Now I'm wondering if you're just a time-wasting troll.

Can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink.

“I don't welcome false accusations.”

What false accusations? An accusation is false when the accuser knows that it's false.

More hypocrisy; if you dislike them, then don't make them.

Now your haughty opinionated demeanour just comes off as insecure desperation.

You engage in SIGN language; shaming, insults, guilt(-tripping), and the need to be right (even when you're evidently not).

What worries me is that such self-righteous thinking can be used to justify any atrocity (and has been so used, in the past).

Doubt, including of self, is a virtue.

Open your mind; much like a parachute, it works much better that way.

Beyond this point, since I've said what's needed about non-mapping matters, I'm going to stick to relevant facts (starting with your source). All irrelevant drivel will be ignored.

Your choice to engage, or not, will be demonstrative of various meta-points.

In iD (the editor you used);
▪︎start & complete the tutorial
▪︎“Save” between editing one area, before starting in another (to keep bounding boxes small, rather than covering a quarter of the planet)
▪︎resolve the warnings it tells you about; in this case an intersecting waterway & highway (without a bridge, tunnel, or similar)

More generally, read osm.wiki/Good_practice

▪︎much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets
▪︎what makes for osm.wiki/Good_changeset_comments

If you don't have time to justify your changes, then you don't have time to make any other changes.

I'll keep to the point, then: what is the source (or sources) of your changes?
If you're not willing to honestly answer that, then you're not engaging in good faith. Thus to then complain that others treat you with caution, is unreasonable.
Claims & assertions, even with a pinky-promise, don't count.
Why? Besides verifying that your changes reflect reality, also to verify that copying from proprietary sources didn't happen (again, similar to Wikipedia).

Example of where concern comes from: changeset/118250223

In terms of review; you don't get to decide (or, rather, your opinion on the matter holds little to no weight) what feedback or questions are constructive or not.
If you don't recognise the purpose, then that's on you.

If you're not willing to engage, constructively, then you leave the only option remaining as escalation to those with administrative clout. Best of luck with that.

Much smaller changeset areas, please: osm.wiki/Changeset#Geographical_size_of_changesets

They're still at it.

Now this is a much better changeset scope.

👍🙂

I'm told that it's possible to selectively upload changes, in OsmAnd; could use that to do a region at a time.

Though, uploading more often would be better. Avoids the risk of conflicting versions (someone edits the same element after you, but before you upload).

Ugh, still with the giant bboxes for only a few nodes.

D'oh; just seen that you edited the English Channel relation.

Ignore my nagging, then 🙂. Carry on 👍.