Jan Olieslagers's Comments
| Changeset | When | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 155863277 | over 1 year ago | Please do not bluntly removed aerodromes when closed - I was near to re-adding it. Better to tag as disused:aeroway or even historic:aeroway, so as to leave some memory |
| 143928883 | over 1 year ago | Yes I did many more edits like this.
|
| 155364333 | over 1 year ago | Then again, you seem to have your own ideas about aerodrome codifiction. Perhaps you could propose a detailed scheme somewhere on the wiki, that we could discuss, and tweak, to come to a consensus? Mind you, it should be universal, not just limited to your own territorium. |
| 155364333 | over 1 year ago | I SAY AGAIN:
|
| 155364333 | over 1 year ago | And yes, our wiki very explicitly states that ref= should not be used on aerodromes. |
| 155364333 | over 1 year ago | Any reference that is not global or universal is, by definition, local. |
| 155364333 | over 1 year ago | From aeroway=aerodrome: ref=* Instead of using this key for an airport code, use more specific keys, such as iata=*, icao=*, faa=*, local_ref=* A bit hard to understand, perhaps, even after several communications? |
| 155039998 | over 1 year ago | Why adding "displaced threshold" to the full runway length? I do not understand, and intend to revert. |
| 94519157 | over 1 year ago | Dear, thank you for your close look!
|
| 153588615 | over 1 year ago | Thank you, I am glad that it is ignorance rather than vandalism. Excuse me! That said, I am afraid that I cannot be of more help: the aeroway=x tags are now back to correct, and as you have observed these are my main execution. Other improvements would require local knowledge, best of all physical access, and I am far away...
|
| 153588615 | over 1 year ago | At a second thought: it seems queer that the rectangle with both runways is NOT tagged as military area. The same goes for the area to its south-east. I am not acquainted with the place but it seems clear to me that a lot more area should be tagged as military. |
| 153588615 | over 1 year ago | I do not argue that fact, indeed it seems obvious that it is military area. But there are other ways to map that. And my main objection and reproach is that you replace the correct "aeroway=apron" tag by the incorrect "aeroway=aerodrome". |
| 152931728 | over 1 year ago | I am not convinced that this aerodrome has disappeared. The local skydive club announces activities for this very weekend! Cfr. https://tandem-skydive.ru/index.php/novosti
|
| 153588615 | over 1 year ago | This changeset looks like vandalism, I intend to revert. Of ourse I am well aware of the delicate situation in Ukraine - and I have every sympathy with the Ukrainian people and nation! - but it is extremely naive to believe this kind of change will hinder the big bad bear in any way. |
| 153047774 | over 1 year ago | Regarding the "heliport" on the parking lot: I would rather call it a helipad. "Heliport" suggests some infrastructure, hangar, fuel pump, perhaps even an office cum passenger accomodation. Here there isn't even a windsock, as far as I can see on www imagery. |
| 152750400 | over 1 year ago | And, err, I hope you are aware that, according to your very personal and somewhat unusual criteria, there are several hundred aerodromes in Russia that should be tagged as disused? Go ahead! Do not care what others say, YOU are right! No discussion! |
| 152750400 | over 1 year ago | I give up. Have it your own way and please stop whining. |
| 152750400 | over 1 year ago | And no, not all farmland is INTENDED to be used for aircraft movements. |
| 152750400 | over 1 year ago | What code? I am only aware of code "ZC96" and that is from a non-official source, https://maps.aopa.ru The field does not have an ICAO code, as far as I can see, nor does it need one. |
| 152750400 | over 1 year ago | Aerodrome [ICAO, Annex 14] A defined area on land or water (including any buildings,
|