Looks irreproachable now - many thanks! Keep up the good work!

Thanks for taking the trouble to add the airport. And my compliment for doing the job so comprehensively! You could have saved yourself the trouble, though: the airport was already given quite extensively before. See node/3036530811. Now we have an annoying double entry, kindly remove either your new addition or the pre-existing one. Kind regards,

Again, please do feel free to update as appropriate. I do accept local knowledge as a prine source of information, I promise I will not contest your updates.
But, yes, I do have found quite a few ex-WW RAF bases that were reported as "closed" or "disused" by all and sundry, only to find that limited aviation still happens there, sometimes using a former taxiway for a runway.
I remain convinced that there is no "one rule fits all", each situation requires individual scrutiny. Please be convinced that I do, field after field. Of course I am not claiming I cannot make a mistake; which may well be the case here.

Andy, good evening,

Your message did not go down very well here, so I took my time before replying - I think it important that we all remain polite and positive, in our actions and also in our words.

First and above all: if you have local information about flying activity having completely ceased at the former RAF Tockwith, I will certainly not contest that. I am well aware that, working from a distance, I can only go on secondary information, and that local observation is of prime value. So please do feel free to update/modify/remove my actions there, I will neither argue nor revert.

Second: I have often felt a tiny bit guilty about adding or modifying aerodromes without leaving any comment. Only: what would be a meaningful comment? "added aerodrome" would not really have any added value, would it? What type or style of comment would you suggest or recommend? "Aerodrome as seen on satellite images"? I still find that little meaningful.

About the "name" tag: I know that, in the strict sense, we should only use this tag for names either given in official publications or visibly written locally, on signposts or at entrance gates or so. There is however, all over Europe, a tendency to be less strict about this when it comes to "aviation terrains", especially in Eastern Europe nobody seems to care. And I do find it important to apply consistent styles across Europe, there is no good reason to map aerodromes differently in Poland than in Wales or in Catalunya. So while you have a point, I think you should not consider it a major point, and certainly nothing to make pointed remarks about.

Please excuse me for being unhappy about your "accusation" that I blindly copied things over from G. You may be assured that before modifying anything in the OSM database, I will consult satellite images (which unfortunately aren't always up to date) and at least two references. An operator's website is of course a primary source, lacking those I will consult sites like abct or ukairfieldguide or uk-airfield-cards. One trouble is these sometimes take one another for inspiration; but, for one example, I know for a fact that the operator of ukairfieldguide will carefully compare as many sources of information as available; and if he does rely heavily on G, he will carefully analyse the historical information that it offers. So please do not accuse me of "copying", there is always a good deal of informed and well-pondered consideration; and the sources that I consult are not blindly copying, either.

And while I am on the complaints: I quite regret your phrase "We will need to go through..." no, there is no _need_ for you to do whatever, there only may be a wish or an impulse or an intention. Which may be justified or not, I'll not argue there. But it sounds like you are trying to hide your deliberate decision behind some nondescript "official" requirement. To me, this is contrary to the spirit that I always found behind OSM, and which has always been a great motivation to my contributions.

All this said, I do understand and accept that some kind of supervision is required, and that there may be a need to assist mappers in finding optimal ways and styles of mapping. But I think the first job for the DWG should be in resolving conflicts, and intermediating in discussions, between mappers. There was this German guy ("woodpeck", I seem to remember?) in the DWG with whom I have had a couple of, err, "animated exchanges" , he is not very active these days, but when he is, it is always on a very constructive and amiable tone. And he has shown himself quite active and quite effective at mediating, and bringing people to compromise.

Kindly and positively yours,
Karel ADAMS, mapping as Jan Olieslagers.

"a page which uses _whatever_ " is nonsense. The source that I used is my own observation on satellite images, augmented by more than one independent source of information. What secondary sources are behind is not my concern. Please do not try and be more catholic than the pope.

www.abct.org.uk vs ukairfieldguide.net
The latter appears to under reconsideration.

Would this be an active aerodrome today? In other words, is there currently any flying activity? If so, it would be nice to have some more information (operator?) If not, please tag accordingly (disused=yes or such)

Elevator given in node/5670835804.

Platforms 3/4 continue more eastward: they have an exit on Archimedesstraat/Rue Archimede. With stairs, perhaps even elevators too, I'll check that.

Was this ever an active runway? Would it still be, as of 2020?

Why was the UPHU made into a local_code rather than an ICAO?

Thanks for prompt reply. I am however not convinced: is there an aerodrome at that place, yes or no? If so, it should be mapped; probably with tags "disused" or "closed" as appropriate. That dlapilota or any other source is not official is not relevant: at osm we care about the factual (de facto) information, not about the official (de jure). I have opened discussion at https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=70259 , too.
Regards,
Karel

Why was this aerodrome removed? It is still being listed by dlapilota, at least; and that is usually a very reliable resource. If it closed or disused, please restore it, and add appropriate tag.

Ok, then remove it as you see fit, I will bow to local knowledge, and I promise I will not re-add it. It does leave a bitter taste, though. But still, thanks for discussing politely.

Thanks your polite comments. I did think I had added it before, but finding no trace of it I was sure to have not proceeded beyond intentions. If it was there, and then removed, as you state, than it was unkindly done (to say the very least) to remove it without informing me.
That there is no indication of it on the ground is a weak argument: the OSM database holds thousands of entries that cannot be referenced on the ground.
If the location is incorrect, then it ought to be corrected, not removed. I much loathe the illustratred spirit of "this is not correct, away with it". So much more satisfying is "this leaves room for improvement, let's improve it." It is not by removing things that a complete database can be realised.
That said, I must plead guilty to not having any local knowledge available; one more reason for my dissatisfaction with the actions of a local mapper, who has as yet only shown negativism. We do not want incorrect entries, agreed. We do want correct entries. Removing a well-meant effort, even it it was less-than-perfect, and without any discussion or communication, is in my appreciation contrary to the spirit of collaborative effort.

Why was this removed? That it is not "official" is utterly irrelevant - if there is a runway, then we want a runway in our database.
Perhaps it is not in use, we can then add a disused=yes tag or such.

No reason to say "sorry" :) Still, I hope you have heard of a "hydrobase"? It is however not impossible that no flying takes place in winter.

Why was this removed? It is still mentioned at basulm.ffplum , generally a reliable source. Admittedly, the web page seems to have disappeared.

Andere solche Gelände sind gemapt mit "aeroway=airstrip".
Ich stimme gerne zu, "access=private" kann und soll man ggf. setzen; und wen eine(r) das nicht respektiert so ist es nicht unsere Schuld.
Fr.Gr.,

As a further illustration, an excerpt from our own wiki (osm.wiki/Relation:multipolygon):
"a multipolygon relation can have any number of ways in the role outer (the outline) and any number of ways in the role inner (the holes), and these must somehow form valid rings to build a multipolygon from" and that is a long way from what you have been doing. Thanks for thinking it over.