Shit. My bad. Sorry.

Unless the units in this building are actually laid out as triangles, they shouldn't me mapped like this. I find it best to use single nodes for each unit.

This has been a fascinating thread. I hear a complete 180 from tpatte and I welcome the new attitude. I am optimistic, but am a little skeptical. My fingers are crossed hoping we can move forward with a better understanding. To whit: I have some comments on the conversation.

>I’d like to clarify that my intent has never been to introduce “test” or “invalid” data into the live map.

Your changeset description specifically used the words "Testing" with a promise to delete at a later date. The change had dozens of golf course elements that didn't exist in the farmland that they were mapped over. You say "my edits were made with a real use case in mind". This only reinforces that this changeset was indeed test data for a "real use case" that might exist in the future. that should have never been uploaded. Can we agree on that? This seems pretty black and white to me.

>The way those users approached the situation felt more like gatekeeping than collaboration, and it left very little room for discussion or understanding.

It's challenging to discuss proper mapping techniques with someone when they claim that standard mapping is "just opinion" and that their "opinion" is equally valid. GIS/topology/geometry has been around for decades and has evolved some rich standards for how to describe things. Multipolygons are the right way to describe things like greens and fairways and the parts of fairways that are greens and not fairways.

>Having a “pain point” is not an excuse for singling out users or treating them with hostility.

The way that is phrased makes it sound like we (myself, Allison, other OSM mappers) have a pain point. Let's be clear, this is your pain point, not OSM's. You have a tool that doesn't handle OSM data correctly and you can't expect OSM to bend over backwards to handle this pain point for you. Third party tools need to be fixed. OSM features that aren't handled by said tool aren't to be deleted and recreated in such a way that that particular tool will work. Please remember that you are just one "data consumer" and you live among millions of other consumers. That's why there are standards to work with.

You are not being singled out. As I've said, I watch all golf course modifications in the country and am working vigilantly with mappers that are exhibiting improper mapping. I've worked with over 70 mappers this year alone trying to educate and correct mapping misinformation and other bad assumptions. I'm hostile with none of them, or you. If you can show me where you feel I've been hostile, I'd love to see the example so I can adjust further interactions.

I'm looking forward to working with you to be the best golf course mapper you can be.

I follow ALL golf course mappers (in the US). Enforcing community standards is not "harassing". I welcome you involving [email protected]. It would be good to get them involved.

I'm not "picking" on you. We all need to follow the same rules and you appear to show no respect for the rules and flaunt how you plan ignore them.
If your use case involves placing test data on the production instance, maybe your toolchain needs to be reworked. I don't see others creating "test" data. At the very least, draw your vandalism on Null Island instead of legitimate map locations.

Reverted in changeset/164694035. Do not upload test data to OSM. Use the dev instance of OSM for that.

OK, cool. Just wanted someone to be aware. Should I at least move it closer to the water and maybe at a fixme tag?

RE: way/798162746

And when you go around the green, please try to match the level of detail/refinement of the original green. This green is rather well defined but the fairway going around the fringe uses only around a dozen nodes. Thanks.

RE: way/795834984

It's great that you're cleaning up some golf course errors, but you are causing further cleanup tasks down the road. If you are going to exclude the green from the fairway, you at least need to butt the fairway up to the green and share all of the nodes in between. See the golf_course wiki for some examples: leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls

Thanks. If there is anything unclear, please reach out and let me know.

Please make changes over smaller areas. You destroyed the area around PNC Park and made it difficult to revert those changes.

Heh. You can see my bot changed something nearby and the name shows up at the bottom of his OSM window at that timestamp.

So yeah, we know about this guy. He's been banned from OSM for putting out bad information and refusing to correct it. He's even turned off comments on the video so people can't add something along the lines of "hey, don't do that thing he talks about at 9:43 in the video. Do this instead..."

How did you come across the video? Just a google search or did something from TGC lead you to it? Maybe we can address it further up the chain.

Thanks for the response.
Could you send me a link to the tutorial? I'm pretty sure we are aware of it and have tried to get the creator to amend it or somehow get the correct information out. But just in case, I want to make sure we cover all bases and address each tutorial that might lead people down the wrong path. Thanks.

node/12090867003 seems slightly out of place, being in the middle of a golf green and all. I'm assuming it is supposed to be by the nearby water feature.

RE: way/1375030597

Please don't share the nodes of the green if you have the fairway surround 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. Thanks!

Please don't share the nodes of the green if you have the fairway surround the green. If you can't see any fringe around the green, you should make the fairway butt up to the green 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. Thanks!

Please don't use the "lollipop" style of mapping golf course elements as seen in way/931454583. You need to create proper multipolygon relations in order to map features like roughs/bunkers that are within other features like fairways. Please see leisure=golf_course#Common_mapping_pitfalls and osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon for help in understanding how to map this situation. If those aren't clear, please let me know and I'll help explain them further. Thanks.

Why did you change the first hole on the golf course?

Thanks for reverting your changes. FYI, the bunker belongs in the multipolygon as well.

Can you explain this a little more. There is nothing wrong with fairways "overlapping" greens when they are properly defined with multipolygon relations. There is a fringe around the green and that is typically mapped the way I had had mapped it. It would be nice if you didn't undo all of my hard work. Maybe I'm missing something.

I really wish JOSM would prevent you from doing changeset areas without forcing you to confirm it first. It notifies you, but that isn't enough if you're in a groove.