Advice taken - I have tagged both the aerodrome and its runway as "disused"

This one takes a lot of believing. I intend to remove, however welcome you to offer some support infor or reference.

Caro Sig. Emilio,
Regarding the "Arcora" airfield, is it still active? It is reported as "chiuso" on www.ulm.it, though that is no longer a very reliable source.
Migliori saluti!

Then again, there is already way/89819874 which looks like describing the field more accurately.

Thanks for efforts. Templeton is however not an active aerodrome. I suggest either removing the "aerodrome" tag, or marking it as "disused" or even "historic". Rgds,

Aerodrome already given in way/78270507, I intend to remove

It seems unlikely to find an aerodrome right under a high voltage line.
Is there any reference or information source to confirm?

Dear, thank you very much for your polite and constructive curiosity!
ICAO codes are simple: https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/ is maintained by IATA themselves, so should be reliable.

Codes like ULAS are very confusing, because they look like being ICAO codes but aren't, necessarily. My min refrenece is an official document, unfortunately in Russian ony, but updated monthly: http://www.caiga.ru/DocAni/manual_of_4_letter_indexes/Indexes_of_Airports.pdf This gives three colums of codes: national "private", national "state" (military, dosaaf, ...) international. I take only the third column to be valid ICAO codes.

Hoping this helps,
Karel "Carlos" ADAMS
Ansiao, Portugal.

Cher Jean-Pierre,
Le code LF8730 n'est certainement pas un code OACI, ceux-ci ont la forme LF[A-Z][A-Z]. Et le code n'est pas connu sur le site https://basulm.ffplum.fr/bases non plus. C'est pourquoi j'ai l'intention de l'enlever, mais j'attends d'abord vos commentaires.
Cordialement,
Karel ADAMS

This changeset removed the little aerodromo at Olula del Rio. WHY?

Why did you remove this airstrip???
If it is no longer in use, correct would be to tag it as "disused".

Thank you for adding the runway near Chkhenishi, Georgia, and for your cautious approach. The place certainly looks like having been an active runway at one time - but would it still be today? Its use might, like as not be for cropdusting planes, An-2 or such, but state services.
Do you have any indication of the current activity status? I.e. does the runway see any aviation activity at all, even perhaps during a limited agricultural season? If not, it would have to be tagged as "disused:aeroway=runway". If yes we need to add an aerdrome description, probably with a name like "Chkhenishi Cropduster Strip".
Kindly yours!

When creating a new aerodrome description, allow me to insist you should remove any existing one, after transferring all its information.
I will do it for you, this time.

Ha, we seem to come to an understanding, that is always nice. E un piacere :) ! I would say: if you are going to visit the site on short term, we had better wait for that. This is not a life-threatening matter, after all! I will quietly wait for a further update from your side, for a couple of week at least.
If on site, check for as much practicl detail as possible. Fencing or wiring? Markings of helipds or even a runway? Windsock, at least?
Feel free to discuss! Direct email welcome at karel punto
adams arobe sapo punto pt
Migliori saluti!

Thanks again! Your term "military group" made me think of a "Private military company" like the infamous Wagner Group, but I now understand the terrain was acquired by the military themselves, so that applying "landuse=military" seems correct. Are there any signposts to confirm "Area Militare" or such?
As to tagging it as "aeroway=aerodrome", that depends on its actual use. Are aeroplanes or helicopters operating there on a regular base? If so, it could be correct. But if I read you all right, this is only intended future use, not current today.
If there are fixed-wing operations, a runway ought to be given!
If there are infrequent helicopter flights, perhaps add one or more "aeroway=helipad"
If helicopters are based, "aeroway=heliport" would seem best.
And I continue to insist: this is NOT an Aeroporto :) !

Excuse me, but the comparison to Grosseto Air Base does not work. We are talking about an agricultural plot of perhaps 1000 metres at its longest, no jet plane can land there, or take off. Also, you remain mysterious about the "military group" - you may have your reasons... - but I think the "military" attribute should only be applied where the military themselves are the operator. Last not not least: this is really but then REALLY not an aeroporto. With al respect for your obvious good intentions and your long experience, you've got it wrong in this particular case.

Ah, ok, thank you for prompt reply, grazie! Do you have any details about this "military group"? Perhaps they intend to fly drones? If so, "aeroway=uav" might be better tagging. Excuse me for insisting that this field is certainly not an "aeroporto", unless I am mistaken this term is reserved by Italian law for registered public aerodromes, such as the big airports, and a few recreational fields like Milano-Bresso. And finally, should we not make "construction:aeroway", to indicate that it is not an aerdrome today, but is intended to become one, in future?
Kind regards! Migliori saluti!

This modification seems very doubtful: we had the terrain as "abandoned" and that is what it looks like. It is hard to believe that it should be an "aeroporto" and even harder to consider it military. I intend to revert.

Paul, het is nmbm een goed idee om de camping te mappen als een "way", een oppervlakte, dus. Alleen zit de camping nu twee keer in onze database en dat is nooit een goed idee, dubbele info dient altijd te worden vermeden. Maar in de andere entry - node/8513237952 - zit wel heel wat meer informatie, dus willen we die niet zondermeer wegsmijten.
Sta me suggestie toe: bekijk aub de "node"-entry, check de info die erin staat, en werk daarmee uw nieuw-aangemaakte "way"-beschrijving bij. Verwijder daarna de node entry.
Ik zou het zelf kunnen doen maar heb geen verstand van het mappen van campings, daarom laat ik het liever aan u over.
Vr.gr.,

way/1327091031 looks not military and not an aerodrome. Kindly explain what you tried to achieve?