? sorry, not very clear ... ? what is "WD"? what is the link?

This is not a step forward, in my opinion: the existing "icao=UUOJ" and "icao:ru=" were, for me at least, perfectly adequate.

Thanks for the addition! May I inquire where the LZMASN local_ref was sourced from?

Well, I did try "fogao" - with no success, perhaps because of the missing accent, which I cannot easily type from my US-qwerty keyboard. But I'll change it right now.
NB I am in Ansiao - feel free to come and say goodbye, if you happen to pass near by!

Obrigado! Meanwhile I came across "shop=fireplace" though that might indicate an open hearth rather than a stove.

What was the reason for modifying the aerodrom (sic!) ?? It looked quite ok as it was. I intend to revert.

Excuse me for being unhappy with this addition. It does not define the aerodrome, only the runway. The aerodrome is a lot larger, it also includes the area of the apron, taxiways, &C. Besides, we have both the runway and the aerodrome already mapped, so that there now is double information, which we do not want. Thanks for cleaning up!

Schoenen Dank! You might wish to take a look at icao=* :)

I will revert this change - ICAO codes never begin with a Z. This really is a local code, assigned by Moscow authority

Thank you very much! ¡Muchas gracias!
But allow me to repeat the question: where does this ES-0249 come from? It might be a good source for adding local_ref= to aerodromes.

Excuse me, it is not ES-0235 but rather ES-0249. Which is not better, of course. I intend to remove it over the next few days.

Hoi, thanks for quick and constructive reply! I daresay I live further off than you, though - of Belgian descent, I live in Portugal since retirement. I keep an eye on the mapping of aerodromes all over Europe.
I will proceed with the actions as I proposed. Do feel free to comment or correct as you see fit!
Kindly yours,

As an afterthought: it would however be perfectly okay to add an "access=private" tag, either to the runway or to the "aerodrome" or to both.

That would be a very bad reason to remove the airstrip! There are hundreds of smallish airstrips mapped that are private property and or strictly restricted to the owner's use. Especially the UK is littered with them. Do keep it!
Accidentally, I have just now added a couple of tags to the underlying "landuse=meadow", I hope you can agree. Kind regards!

Where does that "ES-0235" come from? It is certainly not a valid ICAO code, those look like LEMD, always four characters, beginning with LE for continental Spain.

Thank you for adding (among others) the runway at ....
As recommended in the wiki (aeroway=airstrip), I have re-tagged it as a runway; perhaps contrary to your local idioms, wikipedia considers an airstrip as an alternative description of a very simple aerodrome.
We ought to add an "aeroway=airstrip", either as a node or as an area, I will gladly do this if you agree. What would be an appropriate name for it? "Greaghlough Airstrip", perhaps?
Regards,

Dear, would that runway still be in use? If so, we would need to add some kind of aerodrome, for example "aeroway=airstrip"+"https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:name=Kaavi Airstrip".
If not, we should add a "disused" to it in one way or another.

Many thanks, it looks much better now! Regards from Portugal!
Karel

This modification confuses me, and it is not correct. We now have all the aeronautical information twice, once in way/608674696 and then again in relation/14923843. We have however a strong p[rinciple that every "featture" on the ground should be one and exactly one time in our database. Please correct. Or can you explain what you tried to achieve?

Personal observation - with lots of room for interpretation, of course.