Why?

Please stop removing the names from disused aerodromes. This is valuable and verifiable information; its wilful removal is vandalism, or close. Please stop.

Thanks again, I already updated the entry. Observe that I also replaced "military=yes" by the standard "landuse=military", that will have its effect upon rendering.
Would you have more details about the trial of landing that ended "not so well"?
Kindly,
KA

Thanks! But are they using _for_aviation_ ? checked, and could not even find it any longer in the AIP nor in the VFR guide, so it would seem that _as_an_aerodrome_ it is more disused than ever.

Eh bain, mieux vaut alors consulter aeroway=aerodrome
:)
Quant au "name=": les mappeurs Danois sont encore plus strictes, parfois... Je n'ai pas de souci avec "description=" au lieu, mais ni devrait-on se vouloir plus Catholique que le Pape :)
Bav,

PS you might wish to check the numerous ULM airstrips that have been very neatly mapped by colleague @romeodelta - exemplary! I am glad to follow her/his lead.

No, "name" is ok, as long as it can be referenced somewhere. basulm is often a good reference :) But at least the name should be given somewhere, better as "description" than not at all like you have been doing, to my annoyance.
Also, the use of "ref" tag for aerodromes is deprecated. This usage was introduced by some dummy who believed IATA codes were the only codification possible. Today we use "icao" and "iata" for the respective codes, and "local_ref" for local references, like those from basulm, or similar schemes in Italy. The Russian codification is even more complicated and confusing :(
Meilleures salutations,

This comment leaves me a bit puzzled - I did not change the runway, or at least I did not intend to. I merely reverted some of the changes to way/839381099, which describes the aviation terrain as a whole, not the runway.
That said, this field has been confusing me for quite a while, it is on my list to visit one day to see the actual situation for myself. As I understand it was military long ago, then hosted a glider club for a while? Today also?
Bien chaleureusement,

Would there be more info about this (presumed) airstrip? Name? Operator? Website?

Greetings, Dimitar, and thanks for prompt and constructive reply!
It would seem to me that aerodrome=agricultural or perhaps aerodrome:type=agricultural would be quite appropriate. Be bold, go ahead :) !
NB there used to be a Bulgarian state service for agro-flying, as I seem to remember; if this is still the operator (if indeed it still exists at all) it could well be mentioned, as "operator=xxx"
Kindly yours,

isn't there a tag "missing"?
Not that I agree with this way of mapping displaced thresholds, see discussion, but it is indeed a separate discussion.

AG199 is most definitely NOT an ICAO code, in fact I wonder where it comes from. Will revert.

In this case it is simple: IATA are the owner of these codes, so their website has authority. Also see private message.

Dear, thanks for your good intentions. I regret having had to revert your change, though: IATA codes are maintained and managed by IATA, and they state that the code QGY is not assigned. Check it out for yourself at https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/?airport.search=QGY
Kindly yours,

I consider this changeset incorrect, since the runway is clearly disused, and has been tagged accordingly. Why has the extra tag been repeatedly re-added?

Very nice, thanks! Also great to have a pointer to the military AIP, I think few countries have theirs available online.

As I understand, from en:wikipedia among others, the place has not yet formally ceased to be an aerodrome, even if it is presently not in use. I feel inclined to add 3 tags: "aeroway=aerodrome","https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:icao=EGXD","https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:disused=yes".

I should think the aerodrome=military can also be removed?

Ah, grazie, caro amico! That site is notably unreliable, you are not their first victim, alas.
Pls. refer to icao=*
NB I strongly suspect them of having taken their code from https://ourairports.com/airports/IT-0543/ - that is an excellent source, I regularly consult it myself, and sometimes update it.
Thanks for collaboration, and keep up the good work!
Kindly yours,

I reverted this change, because 0543 is not a valid icao code.