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

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)

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

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: 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.

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 --> . --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 --> . --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 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


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)