Also: for an example of a neatly mapped modellers' field, could look at way/668486319
Good luck!

Greetings, and thanks for quick reply.
* yes, those two entries you created definitely are runways, however diminutive and simplistic.
* in no case can "aeroway=airstrip" be an alternative for "aeroway=runway"; it can be and is used as an alternative for "aeroway=aerodrome". For examples of conventionally mapped airstrips, see way/118617414 or node/11033866500
As for the present location, it is obviously a field for R/C model aircraft, though with unusually little facilities; in most of Spain, most offer a club house, or at least a sunroof. Still, it remains a modeller's field, and we have a documented practice for mapping those in OSM.
Thanks again, and my kindest regards from Portugal!

Quite incorrect way of mapping... please check wiki about how to map a model aerodrome, sport=model_aerodrome and others more

Hehe, as you say, "finally"!
BTW would you have any idea about the future of the adjacent smaller recreational airfield? Will it remain or will its activities be relocated?
Kindest regards,
Karel

No comments after a week, I remove it now.

The aerodrome in node/860532695 has now been described in fine detail in way/1184013656. To avoid double information, I intend to remove this node entry. Comments welcome!

BTW would anybody know if this recreational aerodrome will continue to operate if once the new big airport opens - which was scheduled for June 15th, I think?

I think "official" info is little relevant: the mast majority of strips are not mentioned in any official documentation at all. Indeed one is often glad to find unofficial info, even that is not always available. Still, I think the "fixme" can stay in place, it might bring someone to add some useful data one day. Feel free to disagree :) !

Thank you, I changed it accordingly. Could we also remove the "fixme"?
BTW you are totally right to want your own local language mentioned first!

You removed the name from the airstrip - why? I intend to put it back.

Ah, thanks, I searched but had not found that one.

Excuse me for disagreeing. The official source for iata codes is the IATA: https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/?airport.search=GHV

Likewise, the official source for the ICAO code is the Romanian AIP, it does mention Brasov/San Petru airfield but not this one. https://www.aisro.ro/aip/2023-05-18/html/ro/aip_frames.html

Neither is it very important: as long as the aerodrome is not in use, its codes are not really relavant.

Comment "en confli"? Je ne vois poas de conflit. D'ailleurs, ce tagging est le standard pour les terrains ulm en France, il y en a des dizaines comme cela.

Que cela te dérange oui ou non est le dernier de mes soucis. Ce qui importe, c'est que notre base de données soit tenue cohérente, et que nous y contribuons en harmonie.

Si, il y an une excellente raison: le consensus existant, et les +/- 13.000 terrains d'aviation mappés en Europe.
D'ailleurs, les noms sont généralement donnés et existants et connus et acceptés; pour les "grands" terrains en France sur le site SIA, pour les petits sur basulm. La comparaison avec le cimetière ne marche pas.
Si cela peut te rassurer: j'ai moi-meme retiré pas mal de "name=" pour des hangars, des tours de controle, &c, surtout en Allemagne. Mais, comme dit aussi Woodpeck, une aérodrome sans nom, c'est un peu bizarre, pour dire le tout moindre.

Ce n'est pas question d'être d'accord ou non. Mon point est que tu ne devrais pas ramer contre un standard établi. Pour les aérodromes, le standard établi est d'avoir un nom. Woodpeck (une personne d'autorite!) t'a dit la même chose. Arrête de jouer cavalier seul, s'il te plait.

Ne prends pas le wiki comme un rigide texte de loi. C'est plutot une collection de bons conseils, un compendium de pratiques courantes.

Apart cela, mentionner le nom avec un "description=" en lieu de "nom=" serait moins mauvais. Mais ce n'est pas ce que tu as fait et continues a faire: tu as, a repetition, écrasé les noms entièrement. Cela reste pour moi du vandalisme, et est totalement inacceptable.

Pour raison de standardisation, au niveau mondial. Dans tout le monde, tous les mappeurs mettent des noms sur les terrains d'aviation. Pourquoi vouloir aire différemment?
D'ailleurs, pour indiquer la destination de leur vol, les pilotes trouvent bien pratique d'en connaitre le nom :)

Merci

The aerodrome may be old, that does not alter the name. You are really obscuring information, and you seem to think it is the right thing to do.

What is the runway used for? It seems very shortish for aeroplane use, perhaps powered parachutes or such?