I’ve mapped and tagged golf course features such as fairways, greens, sand traps, tees, water hazards etc. as areas because that is what they are. I recently came across a course that showed the fairway encircling the green and had the feature type as Line with the relation of outer to the green with the relation as inner. The green was properly tagged as golf_green area but the fairway had no tag. I have personally played this course many times and know for a fact that the fairway does NOT encircle the green. When I made the mapping correction to show fairway and green as separate areas and removed the relations designations from each area a self appointed judge and jury reverted my corrections back to the incorrect state. I have personally contacted this person to show him the mistake and that my corrections are justified but he will not listen. Help.
Could you provide a link to the object(s) in question?
I’m assuming it’s about this conversation he had with @Spaghetti_Monster.
Yes it was. I am now making sure to keep the greens separate from the fairways with common nodes only where the fairway meets the green. According to the OSM wiki guidelines this is an acceptable procedure. I do not overlap the green and fairway.
Here you go -----> OpenStreetMap
I looked at some of your changes. Based on your changeset comments, it seems that you may not be familiar with the concept of OSM multipolygons: Relation:multipolygon - OpenStreetMap Wiki. Other mappers had mapped the fairways as multipolygons with the greens cut out as a “hole” (hole in the geometry sense, not the golf sense).
However, you may be correct in that the fairways do not encircle the greens in reality, rather there is a an area called “fringe” that encirlces the green (but I am not familiar with this course, I have just looked at imagery and the info on their website).
One of the TGC “multipolygon” issues is this one (but that’s about bunkers and isn’t an issue here).
My recollection was that there were PRs submitted so that TGC handled multipolygon fairways (but I might be inagining that…). Again, even that might not be an issue here.