My understanding is your work isn’t deleted and can be recovered. You just have to go bow down before the working group and have them douse you with holy water.

You aren't a third party. Beginning a conversation with a crocodile smile "Hey there Hogmite" isn't cordial when followed up with I just deleted the hours of work you did. My response wasn't "STOP DELETING MY WORK". It was "There is no policy that I have found in OSM that prohibits it. Stop deleting my work." That is VERY different than what you portrayed my response to be. I then continued with what I read in Wiki about the use of the "pin" command. In fact I posted several comments explaining my reasoning. The reply? "...It's as absurd as marking every pin placement that has ever existed in a given green." But that's not all. "If you have a problem with me deleting what is arguably wrong, you can approach the data working group and see if you can convince them." And THAT is when I became a little bit aggressive in my response. I'm no fool and knew when I was pointed to some working group to try to convince that I was dealing with a middle school mentality. I wasn't going to get anywhere. But out of curiosity, I thought I would join a OSM group to see if I could find golf mappers. I was invited to join a group, so I did. And guess what I encountered, a whole thread of people ridiculing everything I had done with one user trying to be sophisticated by using the word "audacity" to describe my actions.

Defend that.

And the combative part was initiated by another user, not me. I was simply placing nodes and someone came in telling me my efforts were absurd and deleted them without discussion. I noticed you deleted all of that discussion. I'm not being combative, I asked for explanation and was told I was committing vandalism. Tell me who is being combative in that situation? Just because I questioned the actions it is ME that is being combative? And then there are the emails that were sent by the Working Group that were attacking rather than explaining and providing ways for me to contribute to this mapping community. You people need to take a real hard look at yourselves and evaluate if you are living up to why OSM was created. I've stopped making edits as you have decreed. Long live the king.

I am not suggesting ATYL, I am stating that you aren't living up to that already. And I would say that what woodpeck has just stated above is particularly disturbing. Am I reading correctly that anybody else can live by ATYL but I personally am not allowed to?

I kindly ask you to remove this section from the OSM Wiki: "Any tags you like" OSM manages metadata as a folksonomy. Each element contains key–value pairs, called tags, that identify and describe the feature.[22] A recommended ontology of map features (the meaning of tags) is maintained on a wiki. New tagging schemes can always be proposed by a popular vote of a written proposal in OpenStreetMap wiki, however, there is no requirement to follow this process: editors are free to use any tags they like to describe a feature. There are over 89 million different kinds of tags in use as of June 2017.[26]

Now that you dialed it back I will as well, nobody likes their efforts being called absurd I think we can agree on this.

Let me explain how I am trying to use this information. As a golfer who has used many golf apps, I am continually frustrated by modifications that take away features I like and add features I don't care about. I ran across a web based app that used OSM. I was intrigued so I investigated and discovered what I thought was perfect for what I wanted to do, make my own app. Not for profit, just for me and my buddies to use.

I used Claude AI to help me build the app and suggest how to pin OSM. Which I did. I received feedback from another mapper who stated the way I used Slope and Rating of the golf course in a way already used and suggested an alternate way to input that information and I immediately changed it as suggested. I also looked at the Wiki for golf tags and found it lacking in usefulness in that the only way to get what I needed was to use the "golf=pin" feature and then I added additional tags underneath that tag to further identify what hole the pinned feature was on and what kind of feature it was i.e. Front Middle Back of the green, hazards, target landing areas, etc. The reason I needed to pin these features is because that is the only way I can have my app use gps to know where I am and therefore the distance to the feature of interest. I know of no other way to do that.

If there is a concern about having structure and consistency in the pinning process I am more than willing to develop, monitor, or just use whatever is decided. I have a passion for golf and think providing this kind of data for golf courses would be extremely useful to the golfing community.

And let me assure you, there absolutely is a way to pin rug beating locations (man_made carpet_hanger A construction to hang carpets for cleaning with the help of carpet beaters.)

I am signing up to the Tasking Manager to see if I can find a group to get involved with and if I can't find a group I will investigate starting one. Any advice you can give would be appreciated, even though we have initially not seen eye to eye I see that you have been doing this for some time.

David

What is absurd is someone who knows nothing about golf and obviously holds an animus towards the game thinking they have a clue what they are talking about. Marking the front middle and back of greens is a STANDARD practice for any golf app. To compare it to marking EVERY pin location is asinine. Your statement of creating something out of nothing makes no sense. You say it is arguably wrong but I say it is arguably right and sense I am the golfer here I think I know better than you. I have looked at all the various things people pin and saw "rug-beating" and you are going to argue with me that pinning the front middle and back of a green is absurd?! I have contacted someone and await their response but everything you say flies in the face of what the OSM Wiki says. Just because something doesn't make sense to YOU doesn't mean it is wrong. Get over yourself.

The correct action you should have taken is to say “there is a particular format you should use. Here it is.
Please revise your inputs to align with the standard.” Rather than just deleting someone’s efforts without giving them an opportunity to edit their work. The only nay standard I saw was Golf=pin which I used and then tagged additional information to that pin. What I was doing was far more useful to users than putting a boundary around a green, fairway, or hazard. People have pinned trees that not a soul cares about but you just deleted my efforts because golf courses make you “noxious“.

In fact, the Wiki even discusses using the "pin" to indicate the location of the hole. All I am doing is indicating the front, middle and back pin positions.

There is no policy that I have found in OSM that prohibits it. Stop deleting my work.

I will see what is standard. Thanks for the feedback.