Even if that pitch tagging scheme had been consistent (it wasn’t), or widespread (it wasn’t) then it’s still out of date. Each pitch should be mapped individually, this reflects community consensus.

As for recreation grounds you can link whatever dictionary you like but that has no bearing on the OSM definition. Quoting the opening sentence from the OSM wiki for Tag:landuse=recreation_ground
“An open space for general recreation, which often includes formal or informal pitches, nets and other recreation equipment or infrastructure”. This perfectly describes the areas which is the vast majority of cases contain tennis pitches.

If you disagree with either of these definitions or mapping schemas I encourage you to open a forum post and tag me so that we can discuss further. Until such a time I will continue my work.

Hi there. According to osm standard each tennis pitch should be mapped separately. In cases where imagery is too poor for the exact bounds to be confidently established usage of nodes is fine. A single way encompassing multiple pitches is incorrect. Recreation grounds are certainly not imaginary, in fact they’re one of if not the most common tagging for the landuse that tennis pitches find themselves in. I encourage you to read the wiki article for more information but it’s generally a green area where pitches can be located so it’s an appropriate tag for the use case. Thank you and I hope you have a nice day.

Sources
sport=tennis
landuse=recreation_ground

Thank you! The Bing imagery is so crisp its just a joy to trace

Ah very good point yes I will update that tag going forward, thanks for the heads up!