From a source we are supposed to avoid using :)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pskhu+Airport/@43.3853853,40.8160407,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipMDpbpTX_e81i9RLZHwfms6bt21S36cZugDExH7!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMDpbpTX_e81i9RLZHwfms6bt21S36cZugDExH7%3Dw203-h152-k-no!7i4000!8i3000!4m7!3m6!1s0x405f52ee275edbab:0x749aa5a6f2d0b4a9!8m2!3d43.3853853!4d40.8160407!10e5!16s%2Fg%2F1214gcnr?entry=ttu
Mind you, the date in the picture could have been faked, I have no way to detect or verify that.
Kind regards!

Hm, there's a funny smell about this changeset. Any sources or references?

I changed aeroway=aerodrome to aeroway=heliport. I thought that was obvious to see. Compare version 4 to version 5 and you will see.
And yes, I kept the comments minimal, given that we're indeed in Ukraine.
Allow me to add that I already had a similar discussion with Andy from the DWG, and, out of respect for his person and hisfunction, I promised to not do anything substantial in Ukraine.
But I am unhappy being lectured like this over a minute change that does not modify anything essential.

It is not I who tagged the area as military. Barking up the wrong tree, boy.
Besides, I am not impressed with the request to not map in Ukraine, it deoes not show any community support, may as well be one single person's initiative. And be sure that the big bad bear will not rely on open data, having much better sources of information.
Let it be clear, though, that I have every sympathy with the Ukrainian people and nation in their struggle!

Caro Rui,
I hope and trust you are not too much upset when I reverted your change to the out area of Ovar Air Base. You may wish to refer to osm.wiki/Aeroways#Traps_to_avoid
Also, be aware that maproulette is not moderated, anybody can post their personal whims there without realising the consequences! Generally, one should think twice before entering upon a request in maproulette.
Kindly from Ansião!

To do it right: add a note to your edit, pointing out your source of information.
Cheers!

Very nice of you to discusss before acting, much appreciated. I took the elevation from the source I mentioned: https://aterriza.org/?s=alcocer But that is not an official source, it may well be inaccurate. Please feel free to go ahead, I will not interfere!

Y-a-t-il vraiment un aerodrome? Non visible sur photos satellite, non mention sur basulm.fr , ... ?

I have opened discussion at the wiki's relevant talk page: osm.wiki/Talk:Aeroways#Vertiport

On second thoughts: how's about "aeroway=vertiport"? That is new and unedited, but I think a certain degree of boldness must be permitted.

Aaargh, and I just did retag it as a helipad. Feel free to revert!
But, for what I can make from your words, this would perhaps be a place mostly or even exclusively for operation of drones? We do lack dedicated tags for that, as yet we come nearest with model_aerodrome.
Where to discuss, perhaps on some talk page of the wiki?
M.fr.Gr.,

I am unhappy with the use of a second "aeroway=aerodrome" tag. Is this really a separate aerodrome? I intend to retag as "aeroway=helipad".

What has been mapped is only the runway, not the complete aerodrome.
Also - and more important - I understand there is a moratorium on the mapping of aerodromes in Ukraine, since there is no consensus about how to handle them. Some people wish to avoid publishing potentially strategic information. Not that I believe in that myself.

Thanks!

Thanks, Dan! Unfortunately I am at least as ignorant as you on the way to undo your changeset - if Matt cannot do it, we could call on the DataWorkingGroup.
Be assured that I bear no grudge, we all make mistakes in our own time, and this OSM thing is getting very complex and correspondingly delicate.
Very kindly,

Hm, I am quite willing to go along with that. It seems obvious that there is quite a distance between the official information and the actual state of things "on the terrain". Please feel free to update as you see right - I am after all far away, and can only go by www information and images, and I know they are not always reliable.
Thanks for constructive collaboration!

There's a good question, Matt, or at least one that I totally concur with. I would not object to reverting this entire changeset, but in courtesy we ought to wait for a response from Dan, for a couple of days at least.

The airstrip was already neatly given in way/387215767, and we should avoid double entries. I intend to remove.

This is double information, the aerodrome is already given very well in way/47249361. I intend to remove.

Okay, I can live with that; but it should then be tagged with historical:aeroway=aerodrome or some such.
It is obviously not an active aerodrome today, and should therefore not be mapped as such.