- 1 Driving Ranges
- 2 Examples of completed mapped golf courses?
- 3 Lakes as water hazards
- 4 Added natural=sand for things that are sand i.e. bunkers
- 5 What is natural in a bunker?
- 6 Hole as way or area?
- 7 Why abbreviate GUR?
- 8 Relations not allowed???
- 9 Hole number or name
- 10 Fairway and Green -- a multipolygon?
- 11 Rendering of Greens and Tees
I have seen very often driving ranges being tagged as leisure=golf_course. I don't think that this is correct, because a driving range is not a golf course!
Please see also my comment at Talk:Tag:sport=golf about indoor and simulator golf.
rudi 20:30, 3 November 2013
Examples of completed mapped golf courses?
Could you please reply with a link to a completed golf course? Thanks.--Cordialement, gerdami 13:20, 18 August 2012 (BST)
- this one looks pretty detailed. Don't know if it's a "good" example though -- Harry Wood 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Lakes as water hazards
A part of a lake can be defined as a water hazard (yellow stakes) then as a lateral water hazard (red stakes), then again as a water hazard (yellow stakes). Hence, the lake should be composed of several ways with golf=water_hazard and golf=water_hazard. However, a lake remains a natural waterway. I suggest that we use add relation as a multipolygon tagged with natural=water to all ways that compose the lake.--Cordialement, gerdami 14:09, 18 August 2012 (BST)
- Replying to myself... In real golfer's life, water hazards boundaries do not share real boundaries of the stream/lake, i.e. water hazard boundaries are between the fairway and and the stream/river/lake.--Cordialement, gerdami 18:27, 19 August 2012 (BST)
Added natural=sand for things that are sand i.e. bunkers
I added natural=sand back in for this. I missed this before and I think Harry misunderstood my comments previously as natural=beach is wrong but natural=sand is correct. There is no reason not to add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovastar (talk • contribs) 2014-05-20 15:38
What is natural in a bunker?
Agreed. This issue is mentioned in this request to get golf features rendered on the "standard" OSM map: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/661 Neuhausr (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hole as way or area?
I noticed that there are two entries for golf=hole. The older one (and seemingly more common usage) describes golf=hole as a way, similar to how it is often depicted on golf cards, using the "standard playing path" or something like that. The newer one describes golf=hole as an area encompassing all parts of the hole and says this is preferable.
First, I am wondering who came up with this idea--there's no reference to a discussion or anything, and I don't recall anything on the tagging list.
Second, I'm questioning if this is the best idea. The bounds of a golf hole are not always verifiable on the ground (much less from imagery), but the different parts of a hole (tee, fairway, green, etc) usually are pretty easily identified. So, it seems easier and more accurate to trace a way from tee area to green for a hole than to try to draw a way encompassing the whole area of a hole. In addition, drawing hole as a way would align with the typical golf convention.
Why abbreviate GUR?
If we don't abbreviate other long tags such as "out of bounds" or "lateral water hazard", why abbreviate "ground under repair"? In general, obscure abbreviations are frowned upon. Neuhausr (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that we shouldn't abbreviate the term. As it was added only recently without any formal procedure I'm aware of, it would be acceptable to simply change this value. --Tordanik 23:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Relations not allowed???
I saw that it was proposed to not use leisure=golf_course on relations - I really do wonder why, and I have two examples why this is really not a good proposal
- Some golf course are mapped re-using existing ways/lines to form a boundary, e.g. the boundary of a street and a river bank, etc..; whether that itself is good or whether one should just reuse the nodes in a new way is a different story on a much higher level than golf courses; but it is a fact that several courses are mapped using that approach
- Many courses consist of a number of smaller areas that are not connected. Each of these by itself is NOT a golf course, but the union of them is - that is a classical multi-polygon in my point of view!
Thus, can someone bring some arguments why relations are not suitable for this tag? Otherwise I will change that ...
- Personally I think it would be OK. In most cases the type would be 'site'; in some cases it might be 'multipolygon' if there are residential areas inside the golf course, as in the case of this golf course --> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3965911 . --Ceyockey (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- The only relation that really makes sense here are multipolygons. And these are included in the area icon. --Tordanik 09:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hole number or name
Fairway and Green -- a multipolygon?
Wondering whether the Fairway and Green should be modeled as the outer and inner elements of a multipolygon as in this case --> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4482836 . --Ceyockey (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Rendering of Greens and Tees
As far as I can see, greens and tees are rendered the same color as fairways. If the fairway wraps around the green - or even if it just comes up to the front of it - how are you supposed to tell which is which? --ManitobaMark (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)