18 hole course, would you approve this?

[BCDan]

First off, I DID NOT design this 18 hole course. Would you present this to city council as a safe and viable disc golf course?


This is the feedback I've gotten so far

"It shoots AT a busy 4 lane street. It crosses the only walking path 4 times (more if your throw is off target) .... Their first hole is a blind 90 degree dog leg. They need to do a lot of tree removing for at least 3 holes. Awful!"


https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/9af6a4_236fc52b1040418eafaacc42c4059cb4.pdf?

 

[FrontRimBanger]

IMO the open holes look extremely open without any chance of obstacles and there is no flow from basket to tee box.

 

[BirdieMachine]

Depends. If the walking path is used very little then it could work. But I see no reason why you could design it through the woods and cut some trees keeping it away from the walkers.

 

[Dan Ensor]

I'd say that critique is pretty accurate (although I like hole 1; what's wrong with blind tee shots?), and it would be REALLY easy to compensate for those flaws.

 

[BCDan]

Yeah, but if you were to go to council, would you put your reputation on it and ask for two courses?


Compared to say just 1 Course in Kin Park...(image attached)

 

[joecoin]

Council is gonna have at least one member who isn't going to like anything, so why bother?

 

[Poncho]

Yeah, but if you were to go to council, would you put your reputation on it and ask for two courses?


Compared to say just 1 Course in Kin Park...(image attached)

First off I'd like to thank everyone for their input. I will be referencing all of your comments on the android app on my next walkthrough with a blank map, and trying to address all of the issues. Secondly in my defense this map was built on the first time through the park with discs, and it is my first time designing a course. I definitely have a lot to learn. I have been recently reading reference material on course design, and following various design threads on here. Finally, your reputation isn't on the line as my name is on the design in the proposal, so you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Poncho]

Depends. If the walking path is used very little then it could work. But I see no reason why you could design it through the woods and cut some trees keeping it away from the walkers.

The average foot traffic down and up the main trail is roughly 3 to 5 groups an hour I definitely will look into tree options

 

[Golf Girl]

Yeah, but if you were to go to council, would you put your reputation on it and ask for two courses?


Compared to say just 1 Course in Kin Park...(image attached)

Looks to me like you are just fishing for bad reviews.

 

[Poncho]

First off, I DID NOT design this 18 hole course. Would you present this to city council as a safe and viable disc golf course?


This is the feedback I've gotten so far

"It shoots AT a busy 4 lane street. It crosses the only walking path 4 times (more if your throw is off target) .... Their first hole is a blind 90 degree dog leg. They need to do a lot of tree removing for at least 3 holes. Awful!"


https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/9af6a4_236fc52b1040418eafaacc42c4059cb4.pdf?

What you neglect to mention is that there is a 5' tall chain link fence around the entire Park.

 

[rhatton1]

What I would personally do is go to the council, pitch them this great sport and then suggest they employ someone from this list http://www.discgolfcoursedesigners.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page to do it properly.

 

[Poncho]

Hole 1

This a screenshot of hole 1 we are keeping the existing tee boxcar the pro tee and locating the am tee in behind the "i". Anyone have ideas?

 

[Poncho]

Hole 2

The only change here is, we'll be adding a pro tee box slightly behind that north bush. Input?

 

[BrotherDave]

This a screenshot of hole 1 we are keeping the existing tee boxcar the pro tee and locating the am tee in behind the "i". Anyone have ideas?

What kind of distances are we looking at? What level tees are we shooting for (Red, White, Blue, Gold, etc)? The reason I ask is with open field holes like this it is really easy to make a 'tweener hole for the intended skill level i.e. a par 3.5. For your short tee I'd maybe angle the fairway just enough that the curve obscures the basket so you can't just go straight at it. For the long tee around the corner I'd cut in the woods a tight shortcut to the basket as a high risk/high reward line option. Big 90* doglegs can be tricky to get right, they suck hard if the drive feels like there's nothing you can do to improve your next shot besides getting around the corner and it can be really frustrating if finding your tee shot is a chore due to tall grass/etc., being a blind shot and all. Hole 10 at the Patriot DGC in Kernersville, NC is a good example of this. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=7544&p=cbc50fa7 Hate this hole.

The only change here is, we'll be adding a pro tee box slightly behind that north bush. Input?

Just watch the 'tweener distances again.


Looking at that map from post one, I have to say I'm not thrilled about hole 5's basket being in between hole 3's basket and hole 4's tee. If you can move 5's basket somewhere so that people aren't at risk of being bombarded by discs as they putt/drive/transition it's a good idea to do that.

 

[Poncho]

I really like the idea of a route through the trees for the risk/reward factor, I think the city might even let that happen. I'm not sure of distances yet, I am going to get a distance wheel and walk each hole to get a rough distance for now. I should have that information before the weekend is over. I agree with you on hole 5 we actually plan to remove that hole, and relocate hole 4 so as to avoid the street altogether and not have to cross the flight path. Working on updating the map for the changes

 

[Poncho]

Big 90* doglegs can be tricky to get right, they suck hard if the drive feels like there's nothing you can do to improve your next shot besides getting around the corner and it can be really frustrating if finding your tee shot is a chore due to tall grass/etc., being a blind shot and all. Hole 10 at the Patriot DGC in Kernersville, NC is a good example of this. http://www.dgcoursereview.com/view_image.php?id=7544&p=cbc50fa7 Hate this hole.
We could also move the back pad over toward the trail a button make it not so insane and frustrating

 

[Poncho]

We could also move the back pad over toward the trail a button make it not so insane and frustrating

 

[Poncho]

A bit* not a button*

 

[coupe]

Looking at that map from post one, I have to say I'm not thrilled about hole 5's basket being in between hole 3's basket and hole 4's tee. If you can move 5's basket somewhere so that people aren't at risk of being bombarded by discs as they putt/drive/transition it's a good idea to do that.

I'm not thrilled about hole 4, which appears to be a blind dog leg throwing toward a park entrance (implied by the placement of the information sign, which suggests that the light colored line to the right of the fairway is an established path.) Assuming that the street is 50' wide (4 lanes @ 12'), that implies that #4's basket is 30-40' from the street. Depending on the direction of the prevailing wind, there is a distinct likelihood of drives reaching the street, even with a 5' high fence (which is nothing) bordering the park.

I'm also not thrilled about the number of holes that throw over or along estabilshed paths of travel (2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18). Although some of those paths may not be "official" paths that appear on the park map, the fact that they show up as continuous lines in the aerial photo shows that they are de facto customary paths on which park goers can and should be expected to traverse regularly.

What's worse is that on several of them (4, 16, 17; possibly 10 and 13) it does not appear that a player on the teepad can see down the walking path to determine whether it's safe to throw, or a pedestrian on the path can see down the fairway to know to hold up if someone is preparing to throw. That's poor design, plain and simple. If you're not aware of why that's a problem, I would encourage you to read up on the Polliwog Park trainwreck.

 

[Poncho]

"I'm not thrilled about hole 4, which appears to be a blind dog leg throwing toward a park entrance (implied by the placement of the information sign, which suggests that the light colored line to the right of the fairway is an established path.) Assuming that the street is 50' wide (4 lanes @ 12'), that implies that #4's basket is 30-40' from the street. Depending on the direction of the prevailing wind, there is a distinct likelihood of drives reaching the street, even with a 5' high fence (which is nothing) bordering the park."

As I have said in a previous reply, we removed hole 5 and have relocated hole 4, to negate the road issue. I will update drawing soon.

"I'm also not thrilled about the number of holes that throw over or along estabilshed paths of travel (2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18). Although some of those paths may not be "official" paths that appear on the park map, the fact that they show up as continuous lines in the aerial photo shows that they are de facto customary paths on which park goers can and should be expected to traverse regularly."

All of these holes mentioned in this quote except for 4 (deleted), 8, 11, 16 and 17 have an excellent view of the trails and are not an issue it when it comes to safety. We could easily clear the under brush at 11 to maximize the view, and make that hole safe. As for 8, 16 and 17 as redesign is definitely in order and will be done on my next walkthrough. You make very excellent points, and this is the reason I am on here discussing this. My goal is to male a safe and enjoyable course for everyone. Please keep in mind this map was made on the first time through, is not set I'm stone. I have read the article and I agree, we don't want another Polliwog Park