Do not use skinny lines and close points to try and connect two points, multipolygon relations should be used instead.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149592555

As stated before, there are errors that are thrown when you map areas with partial overlap. The database and most renderers are unable to figure out which is on "top" when they partially overlap. People do care and they do notice. It may not be right away, but it happens, especially when focused on resolving errors and ensuring a high quality map.

It is clear you are mapping for the renderer. There are many services that rely on OSM data, beyond just a little golf game, and it is important that the data follow certain guidelines to ensure consistency across all those swrvices.

There is no golf course where the fairway and greens co-exist in the same space. They touch, yes, but there is no small area (or corners) of the green where there is a fairway somehow underneath and coexisting in the same space.

I continue to remind people mapping golf courses to review this page on golf tags, especially the section on common pitfalls to avoid. Specifically, you are mapping partial overlaps, which is very explicit and even has a photo!

osm.wiki/Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course#:~:text=Overlapping%20green/fairway/rough%20polygons%20(see%20graphic%20below).

Further, problematic mappers who repeatedly map in poor quality with errors are documented and handled by the DWG:
osm.wiki/Problematic_mapping/golf

Do not partially overlap areas...
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149576946

Edit looks good.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149566012

Do not partially overlap landcovers.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149574644

DO NOT PARTIALLY OVERLAP AREAS!
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149532419

...dude...

Again, I have merged your areas to be a large area and multipolygon as I have stated many times before...
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149547829

Access tags should be used for the "private" portions.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149536438

Corrected.

I somehow missed it already being tagged.
---

Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149505371

Again, instead of drawing these areas in many pieces to try and simulate holes where this feature doesn't apply, you should consider using multipolygon relations. I have gone ahead and combined the many areas into one for you.
---
#REVIEWED_BAD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149410854

Please ensure you are utilizing appropriately licensed data, and not copyrighted data. If we do not have the appropriate permissions, it is not acceptable to copy from it.

Note for whom it may concern:

This user appears to have an alt account:
osm.org/user/buhla

Note for whom it may concern:

This user appears to have an alt account:
osm.org/user/Susy_2684

Hello, and welcome to OSM. This changeset has been reverted. On OpenStreetMaps, we do not delete features just because access it private or restricted. Instead, we use access tags to denote that it is not publicly accessible. This is to prevent people from readding it with public tags, and then just having to have it deleted and reinstated.

You can read more on why deletion is not the answer here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

You can read about access tag definitions here:
osm.wiki/Key:access

osm.org/changeset/149334834

Hello, and welcome to OSM. This changeset has been reverted. On OpenStreetMaps, we do not delete features just because access it private or restricted. Instead, we use access tags to denote that it is not publicly accessible. This is to prevent people from readding it with public tags, and then just having to have it deleted and reinstated.

You can read more on why deletion is not the answer here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

You can read about access tag definitions here:
osm.wiki/Key:access

osm.org/changeset/149334834

Hello, and welcome to OSM. This changeset has been reverted. On OpenStreetMaps, we do not delete features just because access it private or restricted. Instead, we use access tags to denote that it is not publicly accessible. This is to prevent people from readding it with public tags, and then just having to have it deleted and reinstated.

You can read more on why deletion is not the answer here:
osm.wiki/Why_we_won%27t_delete_roads_on_private_property

You can read about access tag definitions here:
osm.wiki/Key:access

osm.org/changeset/149334834

Thanks ablevi202! I know, MPs are tricky. But once you get the hang of them, they are pretty natural.

I think this edit looks good.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149278751

Individual trees should not be mapped as a circular area and tagged as woods. Individual nodes should be used for individual trees.

I have gone through and cleaned this up for you.

I concur with the classification and tag change. They should be driveways and not residential roads.
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149260264

I have gone through and removed the other edits by the user who added this fake park. :)

Thanks again!
---
#REVIEWED_GOOD #OSMCHA
Published using OSMCha: https://osmcha.org/changesets/149249294