Hi Andrew,

Thanks again for your time and guidance.

As we move forward, I just want to give some context for why I felt the tone from certain users—particularly Allison—was disrespectful from the outset. For example, in one of her early comments she said:

“You are simply in the wrong, and you are in denial.”
“If you will not map correctly, you will not map at all.”
“The DWG has blocked many of your ilk…”

Phrases like these felt more accusatory than collaborative, especially for a first-time issue. I recognize that I could have responded better in the moment, but this kind of language made it difficult to have a constructive exchange.

That’s all I wanted to add—I'm taking your advice to leave it be, but I hope this gives some insight into my earlier frustration.

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your continued support.

I’d like to draw your attention to the latest comment from Allison P. While I appreciate her acknowledgment in the final sentence that she’ll "quiet down," the rest of her message is still condescending and dismissive.

Andrews - Just to clarify what I meant earlier when I said the tone from some users felt hostile — this comment from Allison P is a good example. I understand there's frustration around certain types of edits, but I don’t think sarcasm, condescension, or sweeping generalizations about entire groups of mappers ("golf course mappers") helps anyone learn or collaborate better.

"I am sorry for not displaying good faith in response to your lack of faith in the advice we both gave you..."
"This is a common theme amongst golf course mappers, who I proceeded to lump you in with..."
"It is disrespectful to me and to b-jazz to completely ignore what we tell you only to suddenly act understanding when a moderator reiterates them."

I’m trying to take the feedback and move forward the right way, but I hope we can also agree that this kind of tone and generalization isn't constructive — especially for newer contributors trying to do better.

Hi Andrew,

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply and for offering a constructive way forward—I genuinely appreciate that.

That said, I want to respectfully push back on one point. I understand that recurring issues with certain tools can create frustration for experienced mappers, but I don't believe that justifies the aggressive tone or accusatory comments I received. The way those users approached the situation felt more like gatekeeping than collaboration, and it left very little room for discussion or understanding.

Having a “pain point” is not an excuse for singling out users or treating them with hostility. We all care about the quality of OSM, and I believe that should include maintaining a community where people feel welcome to contribute and learn—especially when acting in good faith.

I’m moving forward with your advice, and I’ll look into adapting our process to avoid issues in the future. But I hope the DWG continues to encourage not just adherence to data standards, but also a respectful tone across the board.

Thanks again for your time and help.

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for reaching out.

I understand your position and appreciate the time the DWG takes to help maintain the quality of the OpenStreetMap database. I’d like to clarify that my intent has never been to introduce “test” or “invalid” data into the live map. My edits were made with a real use case in mind, for a legitimate toolchain that depends on certain data visibility. The edits weren’t random or frivolous—they were structured and purposeful, even if unconventional by some standards.

That said, I hear the message loud and clear: OSM contributions need to align with established mapping conventions, and data tailored toward third-party consumption shouldn’t compromise the integrity of the map. I’ll take that into account moving forward and ensure any work I do adheres more closely to those expectations.

I’ll also say that while I respect the community’s desire to maintain standards, I don’t agree with the tone or approach these two users have taken. There’s a big difference between offering helpful feedback and making it personal. I hope we can all operate in a space that’s collaborative, not combative.

Again, keep harassing me and I will report both of you. Users are entitled to comment but reverting my changes are not. I am not obliged to follow any of your self created guidelines - again "anybody can enter anything they wish" is self explanatory

The first two sentences of OSM wiki: OpenStreetMap is a free project done by volunteers. Anybody can enter anything they wish.

Again, continue harassing me and I will report you

You are following my change sets and actively harassing me - if this continues you will be reported.

Need to test in prod - sorry - and please, find some other user to pick on

Yes, you don't understand golf courses - at all. Happy mapping and policing anyone you feel entitled to - Muted

First link doesn't work.... and what you both are failing to realize is that a "green" is just a fairway cut to a slightly lower height. Have a great day - I'm done arguing with the OSM self appointed "police"

I am mapping correctly - and I'm taking a screenshot of your disdain for our "ilk" as proof when you try to file a false report against me because you just don't like the way we map. If you can point to a set of rules with these standards, that would be fantastic, but you can't because it does not exist.

This is a question of opinions - there isn't a standard for using multipolygons - it's just your preference, and opinion.
The problem is that you think it needs "fixing" when in reality, it doesn't. Multipolygons are not correct in my opinion and I won't be mapping that way when mapping courses I want to map. There is nothing damaging about lines not being completely correct - I can point to plenty of boundaries, roads, buildings, etc. that aren't "properly" aligned, but the vendetta you seem to have against golf course mappings are the only ones you seem to care about. Taking it upon yourself to "police" the way others map courses is a battle you chose to take on, on an open source project. Good luck with that

I disagree, but each of us are entitled to our own opinions - this is an open source project. A fairway without a multipolygon tag is NOT damaging the map in any way shape or form. Golf course mappers have actually improved the map as a good majority of courses weren't even being mapped before we came along.

No, I just have the ability to look at the separate polygons on a golf course map and determine that they are separate features. Have a great day and I'm sure you can find others to lecture about your way of mapping.

Hopefully that PR does get merged to main on the next release, but I still disagree completely that fairways that circle a green need to be multipolygon object - rough that circles other features is not tagged that way and there's no reason for it. Again, have a great day

Multipolygon items are not pulled correctly when importing OSM data for LIDAR created courses. Regardless of my opinion, changes you requested reverted were - have a good day

Changes were removed - multipolygon shouldn't be used for golf course items