BrennanRv (2022-03-09 20:42:57+00:00): Lee, Listen. I'm not here to mess up golf courses. To do so would be counter productive to us all. I'm not here to ignore constructive advice given by you and/or BCNorwich. I jumped to conclusions with BCNorwich with concern to tagging sand traps correctly. I mistook tagging surfaces with naming the feature. I admit that I was wrong there and very naive so very early in my use OSM. You mentioned how bad practice it was to have an enormous bounding box. I agreed and apologised for this. I have since checked any change sets to ensure they are not covering a wide area. This instance that covers half of Africa, Spain and UK was totally an accident and unintentional. So I am very grateful to you for bringing it to my attention.

Now, for your main question... "what is the source (or sources) of your changes?" - It's simple. I play all of these courses on a regular basis. Just the other day I was at Aldenham Golf Club. Somewhere I've been before many times. So I went on and mapped out all the features carefully. Some of the sand bunkers/traps were misaligned, some tee boxes were missing, not all the paths had been correctly labelled and some were not aligned with the actual path and so on.

Now, as for your woodpeck_repair example of blocking users. He is jumping the gun somewhat in assuming that either one or many of us golfers using OSM are making up fictional courses! I'll reiterate. Our sole intention is to accurately map all the golf course features. Plain and simple. It don't see how that is harming OSM. If OSM is against golf courses being properly marked out, labelled and tagged then fine. Remove the ability to label golf course features, such as: fairways, tee boxes, golf walking paths, golf cart paths, putting greens, water hazards etc.

Know one thing about me, Lee - I am here in good faith. I like many other golfers am not here to vandalise OSM. You and your fellow OSM experts are making a lot of accusations about people based purely on their OSM mapping knowledge. I'd quite happily go through any of my change sets with anyone on here and justify all of the additions. Why? Because I know them to be accurate and faithful to what's actually there on the ground! I can also hand on heart say that most of the courses I've looked at on OSM, where other users have marked on features have not been anywhere near as accurate with their spline/node points as I have been. So I really don't feel like I have anything to defend. 

I don't have a suitable idiom to mind right now, but I'll do my best to explain how I feel about this whole back and forth with you. Its like I'm a random stranger walking down the road whose seen a small child lying in the road that shouldn't be there and I've simply grabbed hold of them and moved them out of danger away from vehicles etc. Then you've come along and said "don't do that, what authority do you have for moving that child? You don't know what reason that child was in the road for!" When clearly what I have done is a good deed in good faith. Next minute you're making all kinds of accusations totally out of context. I simply tried to improve a situation. If I do a good deed like that it may benefit both parties for different reasons. The child is no longer in danger and I feel good for potentially saving that child's life. Same with golf course features I've been editing. I'm being as accurate as one can be from visiting the courses and using the Ariel maps for alignment. It's really that simple for me. 

Please do tell me what I can do to improve my golf course edits. I welcome it. I don't welcome false accusations.