Lee Carré (2022-03-01 16:13:12+00:00): “Unfortunately that doesn't import into golf simulators and the like.”

Then you're engaging in http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer which is not how things are to be done on OSM.
Map data is to be accurate above all else. Mapping for any particular renderer is the opposite of this. Such poor quality changes should (& eventually will) be reverted.

The problem you described isn't one of OSM, but of the software you're importing into. It should be fixed.

In preempt of the complaint that the golf simulator in question is proprietary (or otherwise can't be changed): that isn't OSM's problem. Use software which respects your freedoms, instead.
In such a case, though, a workaround (for the sim) would be to export OSM data, then make whatever changes to the export, then import into the broken simulator.
That process could be automated, by a software tool.

“Greens, sand bunkers, fairways, tee boxes have to be marked as areas to be properly imported.”

Concerns of a game / simulator aren't relevant for OSM. Improve the map for its own sake (by following the rules), not for some secondary use-case. Else, you'll keep facing conflict, here.

“Please kindly refrain from policing my OSM edits. There's got to be something more productive you can be doing than commenting on other people's edits. Especially without finding out the full facts👌🏻”

Charming(!)

Whatever benefit of the doubt I had been extending you, has now been erased by your remark.

That's pretty arrogant of you, as a newbie, speaking to a very experienced mapper who has a long & extensive contribution history, while you have <100 changesets (which shows, given some of your statements).

OSM isn't 8chan or otherwise a place for shit-talk.

Ironically, such an attitude is likely to attract more attention from other mappers (particularly when you're careless enough to make a changeset with a huge bbox).

Aside from your poor attitude & shitty tone, in general, I'll address some specific points (to drive home the lesson):

“refrain from policing my OSM edits. There's got to be something more productive you can be doing than commenting on other people's edits.”

Reviewing changes (especially in one's local area) is part of the culture of OSM. The goal is quality data (via quality changes).

You, as a newbie, should welcome this. Regard it as a means to learn.

Even the best of us make genuine mistakes. Review is one way that mistakes can be identified.

BCNorwich was actually doing you a favour, and trying to help. No need to be obnoxious about it. Unless you'd like to be blocked, instead.

This isn't your personal playground; the rules of this arena have already been established.

“policing my OSM edits”

Interesting, your choice of words. Suggests much, both about you & your intentions.

While you may feel that you're being ‘picked on’, that is very likely not the case.
Instead, consider:
▪︎you may be editing in an area he's monitoring (perhaps it's local to him, or of some other interest)
▪︎you're a newbie; some review tools flag this because newbies are more likely to make obvious (to experienced mappers) mistakes (so it's a chance to instruct them for future improvement) & lack an established track-record. Like with other comparable projects (think Wikipedia) there are spammers & vandals; catching these early is important.
▪︎the nature of (some of) your changes may have been flagged by quality-assurance tools; a bunker in a golf course is, indeed, not a natural formation, and shouldn't be tagged as such
▪︎perhaps BCNorwich also has a particular interest in golf courses. It is common for mappers to pursue particular interests in their contributions.

Review is entirely productive, actually. Necessary & often thankless.
If you dislike how OSM operates, then you're free to leave or otherwise refrain from making dubious changes and/or voicing your butthurt.
Ultimately; you're not special. So don't assume special treatment.
Learn, instead of complaining.
Have some humility to ask questions, instead of pole-vaulting to wild conclusions.

“without finding out the full facts”

How ironic, from a newbie. 🤣🤦‍♂️🙄

It is not encumbent upon any OSM mapper to know about all the possible uses of OSM data. It is encumbent on OSM contributors to know how to do so properly and the rules by which OSM operates.

Knowledge / facts about golf aren't relevant, here. Knowledge / facts about OSM are.
I'm very sure that BCNorwich is well versed in relevant facts re OSM.
A newbie would do well to follow that example, if wishing to be taken seriously.

“Golf features are an allowable and included feature on OSM! So you're just wrong!”

He didn't say otherwise. You clearly misunderstood.

His point was that bunkers should be tagged as a golf feature, not a natural one.

🙄 pot calling the kettle black(!)

“The roads and buildings should be more of a concern if you look more closely. I will be reverting them back once I am done. Chill.”

This is ambiguous, to me (which elements & why?).

It's not for a newbie to tell a long-time mapper what his concerns should be. Quite the opposite.

If they bother you, then you be concerned about them.

Be sure of your changes before committing; avoid the need to revert.
Start small, rather than with major changes. Crawl before you walk before you run. This isn't your grandfather's map.

Take your ego out of it, too.