That is 100% not true. Can you please tell me why you think that is? If you'd like to join the various forums/communities and discuss there, I'd be happy to join you.

Hello golf course mapper. The lines that define Fairways and Greens should never intersect or partially overlap each other and we noticed that they are overlapping in one or more of the fairway/green pairs in this changeset. If there is no obvious fringe around the green, the fairway should butt up against the green and every node between them should be *shared*. If there is a fringe around the green that is similar to the fairway, the fairway should extend around the green and the two objects should be merged together into a multipolygon (See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon for how to create them with your map editor). 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, please reply here and I'll gladly help clarify things. Thanks!

Thanks for helping map golf courses. There are some serious problems with your edits however and your mapping needs to be fixed going forward so you don't continue to step on the efforts of others. For starters, read the following wiki: osm.wiki/Keep_the_history on how important it is to *not* delete map elements when you should be updating them instead. You have been breaking multipolygon relations when you do this. You should also read the golf_course wiki (leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls) and the general wiki on how to properly work with multipolygons (osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#iD). Until you understand these issues, please refrain from modifying other mapper's work. Thanks. If you have any questions, please reach out and we'll gladly help you.

Where can I get the imagery used for this change? All of the rough drawn in seems more like clutter from the imagery that I'm using (Bing) and could easily be left out and still convey all the important information with fairways and greens.

Benny, did you read the Keep_the_history wiki page mentioned above? You are doing a lot of damage by wholesale deleting elements and recreating them. You need to make more of a effort to reuse existing elements and move their nodes around. This is especially important when dealing with elements that are part of relations. If you don't understand how to deal with multipolygons, you'll need to read up on those as well.

As mentioned in my comments on changeset/163633261, you shouldn't be using joining polygons to define a single feature like a fairway. You should be using multipolygons as described in the wiki page. Please refer back and let me know that you've seen this note. Thanks.

As mentioned in changeset/163866233, fairways and greens (and other golf elements) shouldn't intersect/overlap with each other. Please read the comments on your previous edit, read the wikis and change how you map golf courses going forward.
Please reply and let me know that you've read this note. Thanks.

Why? I can't think of a reason why this should be done. Please revert or explain this to me. Thanks.

Hello golf course mapper. The lines that define fairways and greens (and bunkers and other golf course elements) should never intersect or partially overlap each other and we noticed that they are overlapping in one or more of the fairway/green pairs in this changeset. If there is no obvious fringe around the green, the fairway should butt up against the green and every node between them should be *shared*. If there is a fringe around the green that is similar to the fairway, the fairway should extend around the green and the two objects should be merged together into a multipolygon (See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon for how to create them with your map editor). 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, please reply here and I'll gladly help clarify things. Thanks!

(See hole 18 for an example of a fairway with this problem.)

I'm sure you feel your edits are correct, but as someone that is very new to OSM, and even seasoned people don't fully understand relations and routes and what not, I can say with confidence that you are likely not using ROUTES in the proper manner. I'm not saying that the block around those three buildings and the grass area shouldn't be named roads. I'm saying you shouldn't have created the route relation(s). If you still think what you've done is right, show me how by quoting passages from the wiki. Thanks.

Thanks for helping with the golf clean-up challenge!

Great, thanks. Yeah, I agree that a "few more" outers won't be too big of a deal. When you get to 2000 outer segments, then we have some real problems. :)

I don't believe a route relation is appropriate here. Those are more typically used for things like bus routes or scenic routes. Not just a collection of similarly named roads.

Any chance I can convince you to keep your segments to a max of, say, 1500 nodes instead of the absolute max of 2000? If someone wants to come along and improve your work, they have to jump through a bunch of hoops to properly divide them, and those can be confusing for newer users that might not fully understand multipolygons and relations. And there are QA tools out there that tag those long segments if they are over 1800 nodes and I want to keep those tools clean by tackling those overly long ways. Thanks.

Hello golf course mapper. If you can't see any fringe around a green, you shouldn't reuse the nodes around the entire green, but instead cut the green out of the fairway polygon and reuse them on the boundary between the green and fairway instead. Please read the wiki for visual examples and instructions on how to better map golf courses: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls. If you have any questions, please reply here and I'll gladly help clarify things. Thanks!

Hello golf course mapper. The lines that define Fairways and Greens should never intersect or partially overlap each other and we noticed that they are overlapping in one or more of the fairway/green pairs in this changeset. If there is no obvious fringe around the green, the fairway should butt up against the green and every node between them should be *shared*. If there is a fringe around the green that is similar to the fairway, the fairway should extend around the green and the two objects should be merged together into a multipolygon (See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon for how to create them with your map editor). 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, please reply here and I'll gladly help clarify things. Thanks!

I see that you are continuing to make fairways and greens overlap. The latest instance I've noticed is way/1370563283. Please see the previously mentioned wiki page on how to properly deal with fairways and greens and let me know if there is something you don't understand so that I can help clarify it. Please respond here so I know you saw this message. Thanks.

It's generally considered a bad idea to completely remove an existing fairway just so you can redraw it from scratch. This erases the history of the object and makes it difficult to compare changes to the objects, especially when they are done across saves. But more importantly, you are currently breaking relations that are set up between the fairway and the green and you're leaving a broken multipolygon relation on just the green. You need to make sure you preserve/recreate that relation if you are going to continue to delete fairways. Once again, ideally you would simply modify the existing fairway boundary instead of deleting it. See osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon if you need help understanding multipolygons. If you need any help, please reach out. Thanks.

It makes finding history of local changes difficult. If you want to see what was changed in a specific block that is nowhere near your changes, this changeset will be included because it encompasses that block. Yes, 100 changesets is more work, but it's not too much to ask. Trust me, I make dozens of changesets a day. Thanks.

Thanks Mark. Much appreciated.