Talk:Tag:golf=hole

How to tag

Handicap of the hole? And length - usually different for different tee positions. Should the way representing a hole contain all tees?

We cannot draw a hole for every tee. That could be 4 ways to one pin. That's too much to me. I draw all tees as area and use the furthest for the hole. An example: [1] . But wait a few days, it is not rendered every day. --geozeisig (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Course Names

Many clubs have multiple courses, usually a combination of 18 & 9 holes. Often, each have a different name. As there's the (correct) decision to discourage usage of the 'name' tag on a hole, I think there should be a separate tag to distinguish. Something like: course_name=*. --DaveF63 (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Holes should be tagged with the course they are part of to allow for a clear distinguishment. --Dsfarc (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

We have golf:course:name (today 4,655 counts) and course:name (today 1,194 counts) and course_name (today 36 counts). Please use the first two keys (in my personal opinion, the first value would be golf:course:name). User 5359 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the use of golf:course:name. Should this be added to the tag's page? --Dsfarc (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

There's something about the flattened key names with multiple colons that bothers me. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I prefer the "sport=golf -> golf=hole -> ..." type of hierarchy. I'd like to see more discussion about appropriate key names as putting the course into the name is clearly wrong. I plan on fixing all the holes that improperly have course names in the name tag in 2026 (in the US at least), so guidance is much appreciated. B-jazz (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Malle_Yeno on the OSM US Slack channel brought up a good suggestion. Make use of the ref and put "South 1" there instead of creating yet another key. This seems to follow things like "ref=US 101" for highways, so it seems appropriate. B-jazz (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The road is indeed called US 101, but is the hole really "South 1"? Best not to synthesize ref=*
—— Kovposch (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Mixing two pieces of information on one key has never been a good idea (except for people who subsequently write data quality programs). The example with the street reference is a misinterpreted example. User 5359 (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I would like to repeat a suggestion from @Kovposch on the Golf course discussion page: how about a route relation which is applied to the holes? By creating a route=golf tag and name=<course name> that would solve the immediate issue in an elegant way that builds on existing OSM practice. --Dsfarc (talk) 19:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I suggested type=circuit , but it seemed to not get popular Proposal_talk:Circuit#circuit_relation_vs_route_subtype Talk:Relation:route#route=raceway?
The cases discussed originally should be assessed Talk:Tag:leisure=golf_course#Multiple_Named_Courses_in_a_club
golf:course:name=* works for 1 only. 2, 3, 4 with different orders, combined courses, and alternative setups favors route=golf as a self-ordered list.
—— Kovposch (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the proposal for using route=golf is the best, see discussion on the Talk:Tag:leisure=golf course#Multiple Named Courses in a club

Key:route already have other leisures and that argument I think is good. HuggeK (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have now implemented this route=golf tagging including all hole into the relation, see example in https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20630890 HuggeK (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I get the desire for something like this, but how are you going to keep mappers for using it on a single course with 18 holes that are played sequentially? I'd hate to see the map littered with relations that are of zero value and make editing objects that are part of a relation more difficult. B-jazz (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)