I've reverted this change as it messed up a bunch of lines around the church property. My guess is that multiple things were selected while you moved a point thinking that you were only moving a single object. Feel free to attempt fixing up the parking lot, but make sure you review your change fully before uploading. Thanks.

I never know exactly how to mark a business as no longer what it is, but I am aware that disused as a "lifecycle" tag is used. I would have to read up on if it should be "disused=golf_course" or "disused:leisure=golf_course" and remove the "leisure=golf_course" tag. But you'd have to double check the docs to be sure.

Thanks bp. We appreciate the help.

RE: way/856864124

Please don't share the nodes of the green if you have the fairway surrounding the green. If you can't see any fringe around the green*, you should make the fairway butt up to the green and share the nodes 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 let me know and I'll gladly help clarify things.

* The bad imagery that I looked at did show a very faint difference between the green, fringe, and beyond. I would assume your Lucas County imagery was probably better and made that even more obvious. But either way, you should put the fairway all the way around the green if there is no space left for the fringe.

Thanks!

Thanks. Didn’t mean to sound like I didn’t believe you. Just wanted it better documented.

RE: way/1383047196 (and at least one other fairway):

I noticed that you are skipping some nodes when you are sharing the border between fairways and greens. This causes the fairway to overlap the green which is incorrect. Please make sure you share every node at the border. thanks.

RE: the fairway/green on hole 10 (and possibly others)...

As I pointed out in a previous comment on one of your changesets (changeset/162408944), you shouldn't be intersecting the ways that define the borders of greens and fairways (and most other golf course elements as well). Please read up on the wiki mentioned in those comments and start mapping golf course elements properly. Thanks.

Can you back up your claim that the golf course is "disused"?

RE: way/902258145

Hello Vurmilion. The lines that define fairways, greens, bunkers, water hazards, and tees should never intersect or partially overlap each other and we noticed that they are overlapping in one or more of the feature 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!

Not sure why the designers of iD decided to display it in that way. I don't use iD much. I prefer JOSM for all of my editing. You can even customize all visual aspects of it. I could make greens be a dashed red line and fairways be a 2 pixel wide yellow line if I wanted.

Hello there tdaco.

Thanks for your contributions. Please make sure your fairways don't intersect with other golf elements (like other fairways, greens, sandtraps, water hazards, tees, etc.). Hole 1 and 2 fairways for example are overlapping. If you have to put them together, you should share the nodes of all border nodes by hovering near another node and iD will "snap" to the hovered node and share it.
Thx.

That's fair. I guess I'd do a couple of things to improve the situation. As the curve between the two is completely arbitrary, I'd make it a straight line to make it more obvious that it is a conceptual separation of the two. That's completely optional. The second thing I'd do, and is more important is to add ref= tags to the different fairways. Tools that see adjoining fairways and roughs would see them as the same and try to combine them. Since there is a valid reason to leave them separate, tags would help make that clear.

I don't think there is a good reason for you to split the fairway into two separate objects like you did here. Can you help me understand why this shouldn't be a single fairway polygon? Thx.

You might want to read up on multipolygons and look at other examples of large multipolygons that are made up of several segments that define outer boundaries. (You should also consider using better tools to map multipolygon relations than iD. JOSM would be a good choice.)

Hello Mlap,

Please make sure you share all of the nodes between a fairway and green and don't leave some of them unconnected. Doing that will leave odd gaps or possible even worse, overlaps. Thx.

RE: way/1381464169

Hello J,

You continue to map fairways and share the nodes on the outer edge of the green instead of excluding the green and sharing nodes on the border between the two. Please see my previous discussion and wiki links at changeset/165348686.
If you have any questions, please reach out.

RE: relation/19036918

Hello Green. Thanks for cleaning up the boundary between the fairway and green. That looks much better. You should know though that when you removed the fairway from the multipolygon, you left a dangling relation with a single member, which isn't quite right. Mapping around the tee was fine, but you need to make sure you leave the relations correct (or properly removed). You should also share the nodes at the boundary between the tee and fairway instead of a random sized gap between the two. Thanks.

RE: way/1378459716

You comment is that you fixed bad overlaps, but I still see some overlaps. If you don't share every node between the fairway and green, you'll get some zigzag and there will be some overlaps and some gaps. Every node must be shared. Let me know if that doesn't make sense. Thx

RE: way/1380987319

Hello Vurmilion. The lines that define fairways, greens, bunkers, water hazards, and tees should never intersect or partially overlap each other and we noticed that they are overlapping in one or more of the feature 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!

RE: way/1380360712

When mapping fairways and greens, please don't reuse nodes between the green and the fairway when the green is inside the bounds of the fairway. If there is a visible "fringe" around the green, you should represent that fringe by leaving a gap between fairway and green. The two features should also be merged into a multipolygon by selecting both and selecting Merge after right clicking on them.

See the following for more information on mapping golf course features: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

thanks.