Proposal talk:Golf course: Difference between revisions

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Lawgon (talk | contribs)
Lawgon (talk | contribs)
Line 55: Line 55:


I have added some modifications in osmarender and the resultant image is here:
I have added some modifications in osmarender and the resultant image is here:

[[image:Coimbatore_golfcourse.svg‎]]


The additions of code in osmarender is here:
The additions of code in osmarender is here:

Revision as of 12:18, 6 October 2008

General comments

I am primarily a golfer, so would like to make some general comments on what a golfer looks for in a course map. The idea is to see how these can fit in with this proposal

1. Tees - there are 2 or 3 teeboxes per hole. Here it is black for championship, white for men and red for women. The exact size and location of the box changes every few days, but there is a permanent yardage marker for each tee box. The ideal representation would be a dot or small circle around the permanent yardage marker in the appropriate colour. So the tags would be colour, hole number, distance, par and stroke index (or handicap).

2. Hazards - there are lateral hazards which are marked in red and ordinary hazards which are marked in yellow. A hazard may be filled with water, a swamp, scrub or trees. Natural has tags for water, swamp, scrub and trees, so these can be marked by natural=water|swamp ... with a red or yellow border as the case may be. Hazards are not associated with any specific hole so there will only be tags as 'hazard', colour and natural.

3. Rough - again may be trees, long grass, scrub or rock. For this, just the natural tag is enough (we need a natural tag for rock and long grass though). Again rough is not associated with any specific hole.

4. Bunkers - these are filled with sand or mud, so we have natural=sand|mud and a brown? border to indicate that it is a bunker. Bunkers are usually associated with holes, so hole number could be added (not essential)

5. Grass - there are 4 main types of grass in a course. By type I really mean how the grass is cut. Grass on the tee boxes, fairly closely mown. Grass on the fairways - closely mown, grass around the fairways and the greens - roughly mown, 1-3 inches deep and long grass that is in the rough and not mown at all. So ideally we need four shades of green to mark these areas. [[[User:Lawgon|Lawgon]] 03:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)]

Way

Ideal line to hole is highly subjective and impossible to really determine. I feel way should follow the guidelines laid down in http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/sections/section_12.html. For this, the permanent yardage markers and pivot points should be indicated. So each way will comprise a permanent yardage marker, one or more pivot points and the centre of the green. There will be one way for each color tee. [[[User:Lawgon|Lawgon]] 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)]

track?

I think it would be better to use the Proposed_features/Path proposal for the routes intended to be used by golf carts. This would presumably also require a new access=* value. Tracks are intended to be used by automobiles, and I don't think golf carts count as such. --Hawke 18:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Since many of the golf courses around here and with which I have had dealings have public right of way along many of the tracks, then the correct access tags must be used! Lsces 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your input, I've updated my proposal. --Wabba 07:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You didn't address my point at all though. Especially since, as far as I know, most golf course tracks are *not* public rights-of-way, an extension to the access tag to indicate that they may be used by golf carts is necessary. And most of them are not usable by automobile and are paved, therefore highway=track is unsuitable; hence the suggestion of using Proposed_features/Path --Hawke 21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to Lsces' comment. I'd really like to get some other opinions on whether to use "track" or "path" before changing anything. --Wabba 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

tag names

Why not use already existing leisure=golf_course? Also there are lot's of tags that should have a golf_ prefix, e.g. golf_hole -- Ulfl 20:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • leisure=golf_course is ok to specify the mere existance of a golf course at that location (as a POI). But it cannot give you the details about the different holes. Also, please tell me where you would like to add a golf_ prefix. golf=golf_hole doesn't seem reasonable to me. --Wabba 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think Ulfl may be suggesting as I do that par, dist and handicap be changed to golf_par, golf_dist, golf_handicap (ref already exists as a useful general purpose tag). That way, it is obvious, particularly to non-golfers, that these pertain to golf when encountered in the database. I am not a golfer, but I think developing specialist tagging along side general tags is a great use of OSM and I support your effort. MikeCollinson 12:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • leisure=golf_course as an area is suitable to outline the whole site of the golf course. Holes only are a part hereof. --Wabba 07:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This reopens the discussion on the differences between node and area as have already been discussed with relation to car parks. The AREA of the golf course needs to be defined and if fine detail is then being included, then it's hierarchy becomes important, so is_in a particular course for the holes and then where there are several courses in a club, is_in that club. The main thing that I thing is missing with the proposal is the AREA of the holes. A perfect playing line is of little use to most players. They need to know if they can 'safely' pull left or right because they cant make a distance. So if bunkers get areas - so should the hole - with the tee and the green as additional areas within the hole? Lsces 22:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • My proposal includes a relation to "collect" all the holes that belong to a course. I don't see the need for an is_in tag. But I've already added an "golf=hole" area as you proposed. --Wabba 07:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Then HOW are you proposing to collect them? How will you distinguish between hole 1 on the various courses at say St.Andrews which currently has 5 courses at the one club. The debate on hierarchy is a general one that has yet to be addressed but this is another example of the need for SOMETHING to be sorted Lsces 07:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The ideal line can be found in almost every course map, just see [1] --Wabba 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to distinguish between different golf courses at one golf club? Many golf clubs have more than one course e.g: St Andrews has five: Jubilee, New, Old, Eden and Strathythynum. Also some holes have different tees but share a green/pin (the Jubilee course at Rye is one example). --PaulY 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry already mentioned by Lsces --PaulY 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In this case just create 5 relations, each containing the respective holes. Then, just use different names: name="St. Andrews Links, Jubilee", name="St. Andrews Links, New Course", new="St. Andrews Links, Old Course" etc. --Wabba 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hazards

hazards are: bunkers, water hazards and lateral water hazards. Whether the water hazards have water in them or not is not really relevant to a golfer.Lawgon 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you, I have change my proposal. --Wabba 11:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would render bunkers as beach. Maybe water hazards and lateral water hazards work better as ways not areas. Front and lateral are deppending on play direcction so red/yellow change along the border. They can be rendered as red/yellow dotted lines. Think of a lake, with areas it might end looking as a cake. And what about out of bounds? blue dotted lines?--Sergionaranja 08:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

with this image we can discuss what info sould be renderd or not and to point what we are talking about. move, remove, replace or whatever you want no copyright on it --Sergionaranja 09:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Working example

I have been working on the above. As rendered by osmarender, the course I am working on is here: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=10.9112&lon=77.02036&zoom=17&layers=0B00FTF

I have added some modifications in osmarender and the resultant image is here:

The additions of code in osmarender is here:


			/* golf */
                        <rule e="node" k="golf" v="tee">
			       <rule e="node" k="tee" v="red">
				<symbol ref="redtee" position="center"/>
			       </rule>
			
			       <rule e="node" k="tee" v="white">
				<symbol ref="whitetee" position="center"/>			
			        </rule>
			        <rule e="node" k="tee" v="black">
				<symbol ref="blacktee" position="center"/>			
			       </rule>
			
		        </rule>
		<rule e="node" k="golf" v="green">			
			<symbol ref="flag" position="center"/>			
		</rule>
		<rule e="way" k="golf" v="hole">			
			<line class="golfhole"/>			
		</rule>
		<rule e="way" k="golf" v="outofbounds">			
			<line class="golf-outofbounds"/>			
		</rule>
		<rule e="way" k="golf" v="redhazard">			
			<line class="golf-redhazard"/>			
		</rule>
		<rule e="way" k="golf" v="yellowhazard">			
			<line class="golf-yellowhazard"/>			
		</rule>
					
					.golf-redhazard {
					stroke-width: .1px;
					stroke: #f91005;
					stroke-dasharray: 0.1,0.1;
					fill: none;
					}
					
					.golf-yellowhazard {
					stroke-width: .1px;
					stroke: #f9f605;
					stroke-dasharray: 0.1,0.1;
					fill: none;
					}
					
					.golf-outofbounds {
					stroke-width: .1px;
					stroke: #1358f3;
					stroke-dasharray: 0.1,0.1;
					fill: none;
					}

Tees

Tee boxes are classified as Championship, Gents and ladies (or black, white and red). Distance will vary and sometimes par and stroke index will also vary.Lawgon 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Please have a look at [2]. There are more than those three colors (and meanings). So I decided to just specify the color of the tee box. I didn't come across different par and stroke indices yet, but it's a no-brainer to use "par:yellow=5" etc. in this case. Do you know a course where there are different par and stroke indices for one hole? Also, should I change "handicap" to "stroke_index"? ("Handicap" is usually used on german score cards) --Wabba 11:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think you should add par:yellow=5 type tagging as an option to the proposal. It's usage can be seen at [3]. In this case it's used to increase the par for ladies. --Milliams 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks! I also included "handicap:<tee color>", just in case . --Wabba 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Course and slope rating

Different for ladies and gents.Lawgon 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Already taken into account, but using colors to differentiate. Have a look at my example. --Wabba 11:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hole names

Perhaps add a name=* tag to the linear golf=hole scheme? Some golf courses name their holes e.g. [4] --Milliams 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Good idea! Thank you! --Wabba 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)