Hey there Haggardlyforte, I just wanted to reach out and let you know that I reverted this change. The features that you modified were already correctly tagged as they are multipolygons and the combination of the fairway EXCLUDING the green was tagged as fairway. Your change said everything inside the fairway polygon INCLUDING the green was to be considered a fairway.

Check out this wiki for details: osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon#Usage

This one too: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Thanks!

Hi there NK,

Thanks for helping to clean up this golf course. I wanted to point out a small problem what the change you made with the fairway and green that intersected at the north end of this change.

If you take a look at the images in this wiki page: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls ...
you'll see that the fairway should either butt up against the green or wrap around it (with a gap for the fringe). You wrapped around the green but shared nodes and that will cause problems with editing software (JOSM is one I know of) that doesn't allow that type of construct.

Thanks
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/162114092

Thanks for the help!

Thanks!

Removed (your?) names to follow OSM best mapping practices and private information practices:

osm.wiki/Mapping_private_information

There are several problems with this changeset and I'm guessing you probably make similar mistakes in others as well.

First off, thanks for helping to improve the map. We appreciate the extra help, but we also need to all follow standards of good mapping behaviors so we can work well together.

An important webpage to read is leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Three things I've picked out:
* you are deleting other people's existing golf course features and drawing your own from scratch, destroying history
* you are drawing lollipops instead of using proper multipolygons
* your fairways and greens are overlapping instead of surrounding the greens with a multipolygon or abutting them together.

Please fix this up soon. Thanks.

I've reverted this change (see changeset/161725911 for details) because of two problems. The first is that history was destroyed by deleting someone else's existing work. That is frowned on unless absolutely necessary. The other problem is that you extended the fairway into the green instead of making them butt up against each other.

See leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls for examples of golf course mapping that should be avoided.

And (hopefully) my final update to all of the "North" names in Springfield was made in the following changeset: changeset/161686781. Nice to get this standardized finally. Sssh, don't tell Google. They've still got it wrong in many places.

After seeing the changeset boundary, I realized I made two mistakes. One in Cottage Grove and another in Creswell. Both have been fixed now.

"Something isn't renamed just because a president says so."

Well, if he utters the idea in passing during a speech, that's one thing. But signing an EO and moving federal agencies to officially rename it is a vastly different thing. I hope you agree.

loc_name doesn’t feel right either because it isn’t really a “slang” term. That is the new legal name in the US. int_name didn’t sit right with me either.
Either way, this will be an interesting conversation.

But isn’t “en” too broad of a category seeing as how people that speak the King’s English are likely to still call it GoM (while spilling millions of gallons of crude into it :-/ )

There doesn’t seem to be an official name:en_us (though taginfo does show a single solitary usage of that key). The name change for the US is, or within hours will be, the law of the land.

Hey there Daviskj, thanks for your golf contributions. We all really appreciated it. But I wanted to reach out and correct a mapping method that I saw you use in hopes that it won't spread to further mapping efforts. The problem is what is referred to as "lollipops". On the 7th hole, you created two golf=rough spots in the middle of the fairway (that's great), and then you extended the fairway to diverge towards the rough, circle it, and then back out to the fairway boundary. While the goal of making sure a patch isn't referred to as both rough AND fairway is appreciated, there are better tools to do that. The correct method is to create a "multipolygon" where the fairway is the "outer" boundary and the roughs in the fairway define an "inner" boundary. It creates a topology that resembles a donut. In the iD editor, you want to select the various pieces (1 fairway and 2 inner roughs in this case) and by holding down shift when selecting the 2nd and 3rd objects. Then you can right click and select "Merge", or just type "c" for the keyboard shortcut. It's pretty easy.

If you have any questions/comments, I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

Hey there Evan,
Thanks for contributing to the map. I noticed some problems with some of your fairways that surround bunkers. You are using multiple polygons to surround the item, instead of properly using "multipolygons". See leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls for more information about proper golf course mapping. I've gone ahead and cleaned up but wanted you to know for future mapping that you might do.
Thanks.

Hey there Kenny,
Thanks for contributing to the map. I noticed some problems with some of your fairways that surround bunkers. You are using multiple polygons to surround the item, instead of properly using "multipolygons". See leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls for more information about proper golf course mapping. I've gone ahead and cleaned up but wanted you to know for future mapping that you might do.
Thanks.

Then why did you name it Shashta? :-D

Hope you're doing well.

FYI, restoring this to Fernhill Loop. The Lane County roads GIS has this as Fernhill Loop and a survey confirms. Not sure why you thought it was Forest Ridge.

As someone that went through the days long trauma of having my house incorrectly shown on government maps as being destroyed in a wildfire, I agree that extra care needs to be given to reporting accurately.

LOL. Someone's automation changed "73rd Street" to "73Road Street". Somehow this wasn't a problem on 63rd Street.