
This has been a fascinating thread. I hear a complete 180 from tpatte and I welcome the new attitude. I am optimistic, but am a little skeptical. My fingers are crossed hoping we can move forward with a better understanding. To whit: I have some comments on the conversation.

>I’d like to clarify that my intent has never been to introduce “test” or “invalid” data into the live map.

Your changeset description specifically used the words "Testing" with a promise to delete at a later date. The change had dozens of golf course elements that didn't exist in the farmland that they were mapped over. You say "my edits were made with a real use case in mind". This only reinforces that this changeset was indeed test data for a "real use case" that might exist in the future. that should have never been uploaded. Can we agree on that? This seems pretty black and white to me.

>The way those users approached the situation felt more like gatekeeping than collaboration, and it left very little room for discussion or understanding.

It's challenging to discuss proper mapping techniques with someone when they claim that standard mapping is "just opinion" and that their "opinion" is equally valid. GIS/topology/geometry has been around for decades and has evolved some rich standards for how to describe things. Multipolygons are the right way to describe things like greens and fairways and the parts of fairways that are greens and not fairways.

>Having a “pain point” is not an excuse for singling out users or treating them with hostility.

The way that is phrased makes it sound like we (myself, Allison, other OSM mappers) have a pain point. Let's be clear, this is your pain point, not OSM's. You have a tool that doesn't handle OSM data correctly and you can't expect OSM to bend over backwards to handle this pain point for you. Third party tools need to be fixed. OSM features that aren't handled by said tool aren't to be deleted and recreated in such a way that that particular tool will work. Please remember that you are just one "data consumer" and you live among millions of other consumers. That's why there are standards to work with.

You are not being singled out. As I've said, I watch all golf course modifications in the country and am working vigilantly with mappers that are exhibiting improper mapping. I've worked with over 70 mappers this year alone trying to educate and correct mapping misinformation and other bad assumptions. I'm hostile with none of them, or you. If you can show me where you feel I've been hostile, I'd love to see the example so I can adjust further interactions.

I'm looking forward to working with you to be the best golf course mapper you can be. 