Talk:Tag:leisure=golf course

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Driving Ranges

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!

I think a usable approach is to use the following for a driving range
- name=Driving Range (name of place)
- sport=golf
- leisure=pitch

Please see also my comment at Talk:Tag:sport=golf about indoor and simulator golf.

rudi 20:30, 3 November 2013

Most driving ranges are located inside a golf course. So it would not be unusual for it to be inside a golf course. Where it is not there is usually an outer area for stray balls that can be an outer area tagged as a golf course, these usually have practice greens as well so the tagging as a golf course is useful. Warin61 (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

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)
It 'looks' very pretty Harry. But it is tagged for the render. There are no fairways, holes, tees, driving range .. only the outer boundary and bunkers carry anything 'golf'. So, no it is not a 'good' example, sorry. Warin61 (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2018 (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)

I think probably the page should make mention of the fact that lakes should (always!) be mapped as normal (natural=water), then these water hazard tags should be used in addition -- Harry Wood

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 (talkcontribs) 2014-05-20 15:38

I think surface=sand is better. Using surface makes it clear that this tag is secondary to the golf tag. Warin61 (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What is natural in a bunker?

natural=sand is just wrong for a bunker, but I do not know another wa to get it rendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fx99 (talkcontribs) 2014-09-13 08:49

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)

surface=sand should be used. natural=sand is for a way that has no other primary tags. The primary tag here should be golf=bunker (or in at least one case greens are made out of sand). Warin61 (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2018 (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.

Personally, it sounds unnecessary, but if people want to group the components of a hole together, it seems like a site relation would be a better idea. Neuhausr (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been two and a half years since my comment without any reply, so I have merged the way and area sections. I looked in taginfo and overpass, and it looks like the vast majority of golf=hole are linear ways, so that is reflected in the wording. Neuhausr (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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)
I can't find it used at all in taginfo, either, so I will change it on the wiki page. Neuhausr (talk) 21:49, 25 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 ...

--Rudolf.mayer (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Not that I'm a golfer, but doesn't each hole have a dedicated number and/or name? --Skippern (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

A dedicated golf map could differentiate between tee, fairway, and green areas. I would not expect the standard tile layer map to do so, although if you had ideas you could always submit a pull request at Blacktocat.svg the Github issues page for the "openstreetmap-carto" style. Neuhausr (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The osmfr map renders the Greens, Tees and Holes from layer 16, see example. This should also be introduced in the Mapnik. --geozeisig (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I like that rendering, and there are open issues on github requesting better golf rendering. From looking through a few of them, it appears this is held up by trying to get the golf key loaded into the database, which is being done at the same time as a number of other changes. See issue 1504 Neuhausr (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Rendering of fairway

Why should we use surface=grass and not landuse=grass? 81% of users use landuse. So it is a vote with the feet for landuse. It has the great advantage that it is rendered. --geozeisig (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This gets into the whole landcover/landuse/surface argument, which personally I don't have a strong opinion on. Since 99.9% of golf courses use grass, using any of these tags is extremely redundant--one can reasonably assume the tee, fairway, and green are all grass unless otherwise indicated--and when landuse=grass is being used, it's just so the features will show up on osm.org. Once golf tags get rendered on their own (hopefully it will happen someday!), I'd advocate for removing the need for grass tags, both surface=grass and landuse=grass. Neuhausr (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, inventing landuse=grass was a mistake in the first place, as "grass" is simply not a "landuse" by any stretch of the imagination. Plus it's considered a feature on its own, whereas surface is used more frequently as a subtag for another feature, which makes it more suitable here. Whether or not it's currently rendered by any particular renderer should be irrelevant. --Tordanik 15:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you that landuse=grass is not a very good tag. But in case of golf course the grass is essential and the land is really used for growing grass. So I can live with it. Of course it would be better if surface=grass or landcover=grass would render in default layer. But that is not going to happen it seems. Chrabroš (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I have also come to the conviction that surface=grass is the right solution. I also wrote on [1]. Maybe we rendered it in the future. As long as I use osm.fr.
One view point is, what is the primary tag? Using surface makes it very clear that the surface tag is secondary to fairway/green etc. As far as the human use of the land .. it is a leisure activity for playing golf! At least one golf course grows no grass - they use artificial grass when required... too little water to waste on grass. See http://www.cooberpedygolfclub.com.au/, that would be a good test of a render that expects grass rather than sand for golf. Warin61 (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Usually the green abuts the fairway and both usually have grass as the cover. If both are rendered as grass there will be no distinction between the two. I would suggest that there needs to be some other way of identifying these objects other than colouring in the area. Probably something similar to the method for administration boundaries where a border is marked in a darker colour. That would leave the centre to be marked with the surface rendering .. not always grass. Warin61 (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

golf:course?

I noticed via OSM Inspector that using golf_course as a key was flagged as a misspelled key, but a suggestion was golf:course. I don't see golf:course mentioned anywhere on the wiki, but it has over 2500 uses. Is this in some editor presets or something? It seems fairly widely used--should it be added to this page? --Neuhausr (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hm, the distribution of the key doesn't look natural at all. Not sure what's going on there. --Tordanik 20:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Good hint. I added it to the Wiki. --geozeisig (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not all hazards are water.

From https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Golf_course#General_comments

Not all hazards are water .. so the term water should be removed from the tag value. This would then leave the hazard mapped as a line wherever it is placed by the golf course markers. Rendering can be done as a simple line in the appropriate colour -red for lateral hazards and yellow for ordinary hazards. Then the water/mud/rock can be mapped in the usual way (not using a golf specific key). Warin61 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rendering of bunkers

As bunkers are depressions, using similar rendering used for cliffs would give a readily recognisable rendering. A line pointing down in to the centre of the area would be nice, probably a different colour to that used for cliffs. Then the surface tag can be used to render sand/mud etc in the centre of the closed way. Warin61 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rendering of a driving range

A pattern of golf balls. It is simple and can be placed over any surface tag. It is what most would expect to see on a driving range after some use - lots of scattered golf balls. Warin61 (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Clubhouse

Why not tag with building=yes and description=clubhouse? This conforms with existing tags rather than creating a single tag just for golf clubhouses. Much better chance of it being rendered. It would make golf=clubhouse redundant. Warin61 (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

building=* should definitely be used in addition to any other tags! But description is not a sufficient replacement for a standardized, machine-readable tag. The value of description is human-readable freestyle text, so you can't really use description tags for anything except displaying that text verbatim. If you want to highlight clubhouses in a golf map or display the word "clubhouse" in the user's language, for for example, a description doesn't really help you. --Tordanik 17:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, what about building=clubhouse? What I am thinking of is that clubhouses don't just exist in golf but in other activities too. Warin61 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)