The map shows that holes 11 and 13 cross paths when teeing off. This seems a little bit dangerous and I'm wondering if the wrong tees were used for the starting point of one or both tees.

Hello Denomyc,

I wanted to point out some problems with some golf courses that you have edited in hopes that I can correct some "bad habits" which will hopefully lead to fewer clean-ups in the future.

If you look at way/955516626, you added an extra fairway area to extend the fairway around the edge of the green. Instead of adding another area though, it would be better if you could modify the existing way so that there aren't two overlapping fairway areas. You might need to "disconnect" the node that is shared between the fairway and the green first (either right click and see the pop-up menu, or use the "D" shortcut after selecting the node).

Hope this helps. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks! The work on Phase I continues and will take at least a month by my estimates. But I’ve got the workflow smoothed out so the change files are generated automatically. It’s the manual verification that is the big effort now.

Hey Denomyc,

I see you have done some really nice, detailed golf mapping and continue to do so. I thought I'd point out some areas that you could improve on though since you seem to want to create nice courses.

I noticed that you overlapped a couple of bunkers (way/897983709) and I couldn't see a good reason for this. Am I missing something, or should these two be combined into a single bunker?

I other places like way/897983707, you map around a non bunker by putting several bunkers near each other. You might want to explore how to create a "multipolygon" in iD. You can create the outer boundary of the bunker with one polygon, and another polygon for the inner grass island and then combine the two to define a complex multipolygon.

leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls has some good information about how to map courses using multipolygons.

If I can be of any help further explaining this, please let me know.

Happy mapping,
b-jazz

Thanks for the catch (and fix). Appreciate it.

Hey John, I'm looking over some errors in the mapping of golf courses and I came across this course and found that several of the fairways are chopped up and mapped separately, but adjacent. I can't think of a good reason for them to be mapped that way and it goes against mapping "good practice" so I was wondering if I'm missing something or if I should go ahead and join those overlapping areas. Thanks.

Hi Cdurant,
What's the purpose of the "small patches"? They aren't correctly mapped as they are a patch of fairway inside a larger patch of fairway, so it makes no sense topologically. If there is an alternative purpose of the patches (maybe they are yardage markers or something), then they need to have different tags. Please let me know. Thanks.

Thanks for simplifying!

Can you take another look at way/305780252 ? Something bad happened with your latest change. Thx.

A lot of things got really messed up around this area with a change this week. Not sure if this was VLD or someone else, but maybe you could take a look. (See node/875108959 for example)

The number of nodes in way way/1024449202 is excessive. Can you reduce them to a reasonable number (in this ways and any similar ways you create)? Thanks.

We've all been there at one point. Thanks for the contributions.

The summary of that discussion is that a poorly executed and undiscussed import was reverted in this changeset.

Hi Greg,
Can you tell me where you got the building data to import? I want to chase down some errors in it. thanks.

way/663291700 got all messed up recently and zig zags across itself. Can you take a look?

A double sided tag seems like the right answer to me. In the meantime, maybe they can be represented with parallel lines separated by a small distance?

I'm guessing these aren't really curbs, but more appropriately very short walls, right? The fact that the way doubles back on itself (ie. nodes A-B-A) leads me to think this was done on purpose to indicate it is "lower" on both sides. But this triggers various Q/A tools like OSM Inspector since that is invalid topology (as I understand it). So wouldn't a wall be more appropriate here? Or maybe there's another way to keep the Q/A tools happy?

Awesome. Thanks for contributing.

So the sign says "http://www.jersey.police.uk/" and you are unhappy that the bot changes it to "https://jersey.police.uk/". Do I have that correct? I can add some code to skip this one particular node since it seems to upset you, but I won't be able to get to it in the next week, which means that it will switch it back at least one more time. Sorry.

I'm not sure what change you're going to make to make us both be happy. If it has already happened, it isn't correct IMO. Ways shouldn't cross over themselves. They should be split and the layer attribute should be set appropriately. I don't consider this a false positive for QA tools. And if it is, I think the right thing to do would be to go ahead and split it so that even if it was a false positive, it wouldn't clutter up the output of such tools so that work can be focused on other areas without the clutter.