Lee Carré (2022-03-01 19:02:03+00:00): “you will see I have spent a long time making sure they are very accurate.”

Not at all. You failed to cite any source for your changes. I have nothing against which to compare, let alone verify.

There is no (explicit) indicator of how much time you spent on this changeset.

You may be convinced, but that misses the point.

When silly blunders are being made (bbox, misunderstanding of changesets), that's hardly convincing (to anyone but you). I must also question how much care you put into the changeset as a whole (including metadata), rather than only changes to map data elements.

Not to mention the revealing remarks made in other changeset discussions.

“I have not imported any data to OSM. I have exported golf course areas from OSM ready for import into the course designer used.”

Very well, then. That wasn't entirely clear from your earlier phrasing (especially talking about LIDAR & designing courses).

“This is quite a common practice whether you like it or not.”

Then you don't understand copyright or the philosophy from which OSM came. Unsurprising.

While my opinion alone doesn't overly matter, the collective opinion of many individuals does.

That you're allowed & able to use OSM data as you describe is actually entirely due to many holding the opinion that it should be so (and that you needn't ask explicit permission).
If the project were proprietary, then the story would be different (but I wouldn't care since I wouldn't be involved, then).

This relates to what it described earlier about community.

I was simply making the distinction clear for a newbie. It's a pity that you feel butthurt about it.

That it's common is irrelevant, here.

Maybe you should simply be grateful. I imagine that freely & easily available map data, greatly enhances any simulation.

“Your comments seem to insinuate that I am making changes to the golf course features that contradict what's actually there.”

I acknowledge your interpretation of what I actually said (& did not say).

That's a gross oversimplification (and thus misrepresentation) of my stated thoughts (and, keyword; concerns). For now, I'll not assume that you're being intentionally dishonest.

For clarity, what I'm seeking is confirmation & evidence that your changes are sound.
Again, you specified no source for your changes.

Your changeset; your burden of proof.

If all your changes are (for the sake of argument) perfect, then great. However, newbies making inappropriate changes isn't unheard of (I even cited some common examples).

Though, if your changesets were indeed flawless, then it's unlikely that other mappers would be questioning them. QED.

“That couldn't be further from the truth as was evidenced by BCNorwich's comment on my cayman golf course edit. Telling me off for not calling a sand trap a natural 'sand' feature.”

We must be thinking of different changesets. I saw no such thing in http://www.osm.org/changeset/117198630 .

What I saw was BCNorwich expressing concern over data quality, and offering advice to a newbie.

If you interpret that as hostility, then that's quite sad.

Having been in your position (as a newbie, at least) before, my my reaction to constructive criticism via review was rather different. But, then I also sought review of my early changes, to know what could be better.

Since I'm unclear as to which bunker was being referenced, it would help (in the original set) to cite the element's URL (or at least the type & ID) for closer examination (hence one of the problems with large changesets). That would enable more focused discussion.
Why? Well, because it seemed to me that he was saying that the sand feature should NOT be tagged as natural=sand (or similar), since it's not natural. Instead, to use golf-specific tagging. Compare a sandpit in a children's playground; because it didn't form through natural processes, there's different tagging for that case than, say, a sand dune (or a golf bunker). Tagging should describe what something is, even if it ends up being rendered similarly to other elements involving sand (beach versus desert are conceptually distinct, despite both (commonly) being surface=sand).

More generally, I don't see how BCNorwich's observation counts as evidence for the veracity of your own changes. Quite the opposite.

There's a distinction between adding a feature (let's say a tree) with the honest intent of doing so faithfully (as in, there really is a tree where you placed the node), versus knowing which key=value pair is best used to represent that. Imagine I added a node for a tree with … I dunno, something like wood=tree or maybe plant=tree (because I didn't know better), then another (much more experienced) mapper remarks that it should be natural=tree (if I recall, it's been a while since in added one).
That's not a case of meaning ‘there isn't a tree there, fool’, but one of pointing out that my choice (read: guess) of tagging needs attention (to represent a tree using existing standards).
I mention this, because I wonder if it may be a factor. The concepts are quite abstract, and many (especially newbies) understandably struggle with them.

“As for splining, I'm actually amazed you think that's a [sic] golfing terminology [sic].”

This condescension isn't helping your case. Particularly after needing & having basic shit explained to you. Perhaps if you had bothered to complete the tutorial. But, alas; that's expecting too much.

Forgive me, O snarky one, for remaining focused on the topic at hand, and assuming (much like I'm assuming that you're able to read, comprehend, and type English rather than merely imitating it (programmed responses, sort of thing; The Chinese Room Problem if you care to know more), or that you're human not an AI) that an unfamiliar term used by a golf enthusiast might plausibly be from that domain, instead.

“You can use a dictionary for that term.”

You mean, like:
▪︎http://searx.gnous.eu/search?q=define%3Asplining
▪︎http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/splining
? Neither of which yielded anything matching your next claim 🤦‍♂️. Lots of references to woodwork & machining / fabrication. None to mapping.

Perhaps you could show me how I'm doing it wrong, and the obviously correct way to find a matching definition.

“[Splining is] the very process OSM uses to edit feature using areas, lines etc.”

OSM doesn't edit a thing. Editors & contributors do.
I'm actually amazed that you, as a newbie, are not intimately familiar with all of OSM's terminology & distinctions. 😲

Even http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?search=splining&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 yielded only some mentions of JOSM plugins, and curve-drawing tools.

Seems that it's originally a mathematical term, specifically related to curves. Not areas (unless that's an obscure or niche use).

Use of the term “lines” is misleading in this context. In OSM the only lines are straight. Pseudo-curves are formed from many straight segments between nodes. Roundabouts, for example, aren't (stored as) circles, but polygons.

But, yes, bad me for not being a mathematician. 40 lashes at the post! 😆
Maybe BCNorwich can sell tickets.

Yet, this is akin to a mapper not having a working knowledge of graph theory, and the associated algorithms. Obviously I don't need to mention how graphs are relevant to OSM to an omniscient expert such as yourself.

“For someone who seems to know so much and takes so much time to enforce rules of OSM editing, then I'd expect you to know what splining is.”

So, your complaint is that I don't know  everything? Right. Now I'm thinking that my prediction re your (dis)honesty is being proven true. How sad.

Perhaps you should start by setting the example. Given your ignorance of OSM basics.

Based on my above reply, it seems that you're none too clear (on splines, or STFWing), yourself.

From my reading, one can draw curves without splining (that is, which are not splines). So, even your premise fails scrutiny. You should read about making valid logical arguments, then about making sound ones.

I could retort that I find it amusing that a golfer doesn't know how to map a bunker. But, that would be disingenuous, hence not lowering myself to such pettiness. Instead, preferring to focus on the facts at hand, despite the array of fallacies I must wade through.

Instead of being an ass about it, you could extend the same courtesy to others as they have to you, by either explaining or citing a relevant reference for them to read.

Enforcing rules how, precisely? I'm attempting to explain & persuade, even in the face of attempted derailing, hostility, childlike attitude & pettiness, insults, dishonesty, and various fallacies.

Interesting that you would much rather evade the point, and engage in drama (attempting to make it about a personality-dispute soap-opera).
For one who thinks so highly of himself, you have much to learn. Classic Dunning-Kruger.

This is becoming only too predictable, and thus boring, now.
At least others (interested in being reasonable, and learning) will benefit.

Not to mention adding to your track record, for when you end up facing the banhammer or other sanctions.

“the only mistake I've made is not realising the change set spanned an enormous area of Europe!”

Yet another claim. More arrogance, too.

Do you have anything fresh, substantial, or otherwise of consequence? Perhaps something salient, to start.

“that was completely not intentional.”

Which rather undermines the credibility of your previous point. Oh dear. Cognitive-dissonance for the win, eh? 👏

“I always click save after editing the golf courses”

Evidently not.

“I wasn't expecting half the UK to be included in the changes made to anfi tauro!”

So, instead of running your mouth, perhaps demonstrate your superiority by learning at least some basics. Start with completing the damn tutorial.

Demonstrate some merit, if you wish to be taken seriously.

“I have nothing to apologise for with regard to the changes I've made.”

Who (other than you) said anything about apologising?
This is pure projection. Check your assumptions.

“I use OSM editor for the changes I make and if they supply fairways, greens and sand trap features as a valid feature then I am well within the rules to use those feature tags.”

Firstly, there is no ‘OSM editor’. The editor you used is iD. There are many (quite different) editors.
This willful ignorance of such basics really isn't helping your case.

However, your description & assumptions are (yet again) not how it works. Presets are for convenience. Treat them as suggestions. It's still on you to ensure that the changes you make (including of tags) are sound.

Instead of trying to bicker, you could ask. When not being obnoxious, experienced mappers are very likely to help, willingly. Your attitude is likely why BCNorwich saw fit to not waste any further time on someone so unreceptive (to put it mildly, and say the least).

Different editors use different presets. There's a few reasons behind that (all of which are beyond the scope, here).
Some presents are known to be (and sometimes marked as) being deprecated.
Tagging schemes are, on occasion, deprecated in favour of new ones (designed from lessons learned of the problems with the previous scheme).

Just because an editor suggests something, doesn't mean that it's inherently valid.
Just because I could pick up my ball from the tee and walk it to the hole, doesn't mean that I scored a (valid) hole-in-one.

When multiple suggestions might apply, or at least exist even if you don't know of them, then how will you choose the right one?
That was evidently the case based on BCNorwich's comment.

Editors, just like QA tools, can be wrong (and are a fair fraction of the time).

Sounds like you're seeking any excuse to railroad your changes.
I've encountered other characters with similar attitudes, before. In the end, they were clearly put in their place by those who do actually enforce the rules.

Ultimately, a poor workman blames his tools.

If your contention is that an editor shouldn't allow you to do anything incorrectly, then the ultimate solution to that lack of responsibility-taking is to block you.

“End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.”

If you're not willing to engage, then that makes a bunch of decisions a whole let simpler.

Best of luck with this approach.

So sad that you're not willing to be reasonable.
That you care more about arguing, and appearing right (or at least being very defensive), than in learning to do quality work. Sloppy work will simply be reverted by someone (perhaps other golfing enthusiasts, who hold OSM as primary when editing, having learned good practice).